Planning Commission - 04/24/1989 AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
' Monday, April 24, 1989
7:30 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
III. MINUTES
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
*NOTE: THE TIMES LISTED BELOW ARE TENTATIVE, AND MAY BE SIGNIFICANTLY EARLIER, OR
LATER THAN LISTED.
(7:35) A. PRESERVE SOUTH, by BRW, Inc. Request for Planned Unit Development
Concept Amendment on approximately 18 acres, a Planned Unit
Is 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.
(8:05) B. 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 continued public hearing.
(8:20) C. 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 continued public hearing.
(8:35) D. 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 continued public hearing.
Agenda
Monday, April 24, 1989
• Page Two
(8:50) E. EDENVALE II BUSINESS CENTER, by Hoyt Development. Request for Site
Plan Review within the I-2 zoning district on 4.59 acres for
construction of a 70,528 square foot office/warehouse. Location:
14500 Martin Drive. A public hearing.
(9:15) F. EDEN SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER, by The Robert Larsen Partners. A
request for Planned Unit Development Amendment Review and Planned
Unit Development District Review on 9.59 acres with waivers, Zoning
District Amendment in the existing C-Reg-Ser zoning district on 9.59
acres, and Preliminary Plat of 11.72 acres into 3 lots for
construction of a 60,794 square foot commercial devlopment.
Location: Northeast corner of Highway #169 and Prairie Center
Drive. A public hearing.
(9:45) G. CHASE POINT, by Crosstown Investors. Request for Comprehensive
Guide Plan Amendment from Medium Density Residential to Neighborhood
Commercial on 7.9 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to
Neighborhood Commercial on 2.78 acres, Preliminary Platting of 7.9
acres into 2 lots, 1 outlot with variances to be reviewed by the
Board of Appeals for construction of a gas station, and daycare
facility. Location: West of Shady Oak Road, north of the proposed
40 City West Parkway extension. A public hearing.
V. OLD BUSINESS
VI. NEW BUSINESS
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVED MINUTES
MONDAY, APRIL 24, 1989 7 : 30 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7600 Executive Drive
COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chairperson Christine Dodge,
Doug Fell, Robert Hallett, Charles
Ruebling, Doug Sandstad
COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Julianne Bye, Richard Anderson
STAFF MEMBERS : Chris Enger, Director of Planning;
Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Don
Uram, Assistant Planner; Alan Gray,
City Engineer; Deb Edlund, Recording
Secretary
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL:
I . APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION:
-
Hallett moved, seconded by Fell to approve the Agenda as
published. Motion carried 5-0-0 .
II . MEMBERS REPORTS
III . MINUTES
MOTION•
Ruebling moved, seconded by Sandstad to approve the Minutes of
the March 13, 1989 Planning Commission meeting as published .
Motion carried 4-0-1. Fell abstained.
MOTION•
Hallett moved, seconded by Sandstad to approve the Minutes of
the April 10, 1989 Planning Commission meeting as amended .
CORRECTION•
Page 22, paragraph 2, should read: Dodge believed that during
the last year the Commission members were all participating
more in making motions .
Motion carried 5-0-0 .
i
Planning Commission Minutes 2 April 24, 1989
. 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
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.
Ed Flaherty, developer, requested a continuance for two
weeks to allow the necessary time to resolve two technical
issues .
Miles Lindberg, BRW, Inc. , thanked the Commissioners and
the neighbors for attending the site viewing. Lindberg
presented the following issues to be resolved:
1 . Additional berming to be provided at the south
side of the parking lot, with 3 to 1 slopes
provided for berming at the south property line .
2. Determine the location of the entrance to the new
Auto Mall and resolve the preliminary grades
proposed for the entrance .
Lindberg stated that the additional berming being proposed
along the southern boundaries would involve a substantial
increase in costs for the project, which the proponent
wished to explore further . Also, the Auto Mall driveway
might not be able to be installed with the proposed grade
on the extension of Medcom Boulevard.
Sandstad asked what stage of development the Auto Mall was
presently at. Lindberg replied that construction of the
building was almost completed and asphalt had already been
put in for the parking area . The question which needed to
be addressed was how Medcom Boulevard would be constructed
and what the City's participation would be .
Lindberg believed that all of the issues could be resolved
by the next Planning Commission meeting.
Ruebling noted that the proposed plan depicted the berm
dropping at the grove of trees. Lindberg replied that was
correct; however, Staff was also recommending that grading
start at the south property line and the proponent would
prefer the grading start approximately 10 to 12 feet away
from the property line .
• Hallett requested that clarification be provided by the
next meeting on the following:
1. The starting time of the last show.
Planning Commission Minutes 3 April 24, 1989
• 2 . The exact policy to be implemented for gaining
admittance to the game room. (Hallett added that
the Planning Commission had requested that proof
of purchase of a movie ticket be required before
entrance to the game room was permitted. )
3. What type of plant material would be used for
screening and would it provide for year round
screening?
4. Would it be possible to close off the parking lot
area after the theater closed?
Uram recommended the Planning Commission give the
proponent direction on the berming and/or plant material
required and added that Staff would be comfortable
allowing a two week continuance.
Ruebling asked Uram what the City was proposing as a
solution for the Auto Mall entrance . Uram replied that
Staff was presently working on possible alternatives .
Lindberg added that the two private parties involved and
the City needed to all work together to determine an
acceptable solution.
Hallett asked Uram if the City Forester had reviewed the
site and approved the proposed landscape plan . Uram
replied that City Forester, Stu Fox, had not done a site
review.
Ruebling noted that the issue related to the
substantiation of a Comprehensive Guide Plan change had
not yet been resolved and believed that further discussion
was needed.
Dodge believed that a recommendation from the City
Forester was important; however, she was also concerned
about the possible additional delay past the recommended
two week period.
Ruebling stated that the developments affect on the site
and its natural features was one of the issues raised in
the evaluation for substantiating a Comprehensive Guide
Plan change.
Uram stated that he would relay the City Forester 's
recommendations to the proponent as soon as possible, and
the proponent should examine both alternatives . Lindberg
stated that the proponent would examine all the
information and would present to the Planning Commission
at the next meeting the landscape plan the proponent
preferred.
• Sandstad stated that he appreciated the care and the time
the proponent had taken to address the Planning
Commission's and neighborhood 's concerns . He added that
Planning Commission Minutes 4 April 24, 1989
• this item had been reviewed at three previous Planning
Commission meetings and that to delay it any further than
the next meeting would be unreasonable . The residents had
been through some very long meetings and he believed the
residents needed to be assured that this issue would not
drag on endlessly and that a decision would be made at the
next Planning Commission meeting. Lindberg concurred that
a decision should be made at the next Planning Commission
meeting.
MOTION-
Sandstad moved, seconded by Ruebling to continue this item
to the May 8, 1989 Planning Commission meeting; noting
that further continuance would not be approved.
Tom Walters, 12490 Porcupine Court, thanked Commissioner
Sandstad for his appreciation of the residents time .
Walters believed the request for a continuance by the
developer was unnecessary and was only a ploy to wear down
the neighborhoods resistance . Walters did not believe
that a Comprehensive Guide Plan change had been
substantiated and questioned how residents buying property
could rely on the Comprehensive Guide Plan. He said the
neighbors had been against the proposal from the beginning
and had expressed that opposition in the form of a
petition in August 1988 and neighbors had been present at
several meeting to voice their opposition. Walters
believed that many of the neighbors believed this was a
"done deal" and that nothing would be gained by further
expression of opposition. Walters concluded by stating
that the proposal should be rejected because it did not
fit the current Comprehensive Guide Plan regulations .
Carl Guggenberger, 12460 Porcupine Court, believed that
Cinemark had been vague on the exact starting time of the
last show, how many special showings would take place, and
what the day time use would be for the theater, if any.
Dodge noted that the Commissioners had indicated the need
for answers to these questions at the next Planning
Commission meeting.
Joanne Slaven, 8698 Grier Lane, stated that there was an
existing traffic problem on Preserve Boulevard which
needed to be addressed before additional development
created an increase in traffic.
Motion to continue this item to the May 8, 1989 Planning
Commission meeting carried 5-0-0 .
B. 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
Planning Commission Minutes 5 April 24, 1989
• Drive, east of BLUE SKY FIRST ADDITION. A continued
public hearing.
Frank Cardarelle, representing the proponent, presented a
revised plan which ,had been reduced by two lots .
Cardarelle added that the average lot size would now be
27,000 square feet and the 50 foot front yard setbacks had
been provided along Meadowvale Drive.
Uram reported that the proponent had revised the plan to
meet the R1-22 zoning, increased the lot widths to 103
feet, and had provided the 50 foot front yard setbacks
with the exception of Lot 1 . He added that the 50 foot
front yard setback could still be obtained on the corner
lot only with the appropriate home design.
Ruebling asked Uram what the side yard setbacks would be .
Uram replied that there would be a minimum of 30 feet
between the homes .
Linda Hoffer, 8711 Meadowvale Drive, stated that many of
the neighbors which had attended the last Planning
Commission meeting were not in attendance due to the
confusion caused by a letter received by the residents
stating that this item would be reviewed by the City
Council on May 2, 1989 . Uram replied that the notice sent
• to the residents stated that the Preliminary Plat would be
reviewed by the City Council at the May 2, 1989 City
Council meeting.
Larry Lewis, 8681 Meadowvale Drive, stated that he
appreciated the attempt by the proponent to increase the
lot sizes and to change the zoning; however, he believed
the proposed development was still not in keeping with the
current standards of the Meadowvale Drive homes .
Fred Purcell, 8610 Red Oak Drive, stated that he owned two
lots on Meadowvale and was concerned about Lot 1, which he
considered to be too narrow. Purcell added that a narrow
home would not be consistent with the existing
neighborhood. Uram concurred that Lot 1 would require the
construction of a narrower home. Uram stated that an
alternative would be to turn Lots 2 and 3 to face
Meadowvale Drive . Cardarelle stated that the proponent
was trying to create a neighborhood effect and that if
Lots 2 and 3 were rotated it would appear to split the
development . He added that to remove another lot would
increase the average lot sizes to 30,000 square feet.
Sandstad stated that if the Lots 2 and 3 now facing on
Meadowvale were 220 feet deep the corner lot would not
• have the narrow configuration.
John Hoffer, 8711 Meadowvale Drive, stated that the lots
Planning Commission Minutes 6 April 24, 1989
• are still too narrow and the density on the front of the
lots was much more than those on Meadowvale Drive . He
said that this development would have a totally different
appearance from the existing neighborhood.
Al Musech, 16030 Summit Drive, stated that he believed
that this proposed development should also be governed by
the covenants for the surrounding neighborhoods .
Cardarelle stated that the proponent had not yet seen a
copy of the covenants and requested time to review them.
Musech stated that the first draft was in 1961 referenced
the 50 foot front yard setback; however, the covenant
referred to a 35 foot front yard setback . Dodge believed
that the minimum setback at that time was 30 feet . Enger
replied that many of the homes in the 1960 's were set back
further because of covenants . Uram stated that the
neighborhood had requested 50 foot setbacks and the
developer had agreed to comply with that request. Dodge
asked Musech if the covenant specified the 125 foot lot
width. Musech replied that he did not find that
referenced in the covenant.
Linda Hoffer, believed that the development should only
have 8 lots to be consistent with the existing
neighborhood. She added the whole character of the
neighborhood would be changed .
• Fell stated that he would favor Lots 2 and 3 being rotated
to face Meadowvale Drive because the corner lot as
presently proposed was too narrow.
Sandstad believed that the proponent had made as many of
the changes suggested by the Planning Commission at the
last meeting as could be reasonably expected . Sandstad
stated that the development met all the standards for R1-
22 zoning, the proponent had met additional request of the
neighborhood and the proponent had the right to develop
this property.
Hallett asked Uram if sidewalks and trails were being
proposed or recommended by Staff . Uram replied that this
development did not require sidewalks but that sidewalks
would be constructed along the west side of Red Oak Drive
as part of the Red Rock Shores development.
Ruebling stated that there were two existing lots on the
west side of Meadowvale and Summit which needed to be
considered regarding lot size compatibility. Olsen stated
that the two lots were 110 and 107 feet wide .
Cardarelle noted that the lots in Blue Sky First Addition
• had 100 foot wide lots .
Ruebling stated that the developer had widen the lots as
Planning Commission 'Minutes 7 April 24, 1989
requested . He added that he was concerned that if the two
lots were rotated the houses could face in either
direction.
Dodge asked the proponent what the market value of the
lots was projected to be. Olsen stated that he was not
sure what the selling price of the lots would be at this
time . Dodge stated that she understood the neighborhoods
concern with the 125 foot wide lots; however, the whole
neighborhood did not have 125 foot wide lots . She did not
believe there was any rationale to deny the project.
Larry Lewis, stated that only two lots in the existing
neighborhoods were less than 125 feet wide . Olsen stated
that he knew of at least 14 lots in the adjacent
neighborhoods which were not 125 feet in width. Lewis
stated that he had submitted a drawing which would remove
one additional lot. He appreciated the proponents
monetary concerns; however, he had bought his home because
he liked how the houses in the neighborhood were laid out.
Dodge asked Lewis if he understood that less expensive
homes could possibly be built on these lots if the zoning
was changed to R1-13 . 5. Lewis believed that the R1-22
zoning was not the issue; the issue was the size of the
lots and added that he strongly believed that the width of
the lots should be maintained at 125 feet wide, which
. could be accomplish with the removal of one more lot.
John Hoffer stated that Orin Thompson was currently
building homes at County Road #1 and County Road #4 which
were large homes on small lots . He added that the Orin
Thompson development was not adjacent to an existing
neighborhood. He believed this proposal created a very
dense appearance and that there was too much unusable
space left on the back of these lots . Hoffer believed
that the important difference between the two developments
was that this development was being proposed adjacent to
existing neighborhoods.
Uram suggested an alternative which would increase the
width of the lots along Meadowvale Drive and reduce the
length of the lots on the east/west road by approximately
80 feet.
Ruebling stated that Purcell 's lot would also have a
problem meeting the 50 foot setback . The corner lot would
have at least a 30 foot setback .
Lewis asked if pricing of the lot sizes had been a
consideration. Cardarelle stated that several
considerations needed to be examined to determine the
• selling price of the lots .
A general discussion took place between the neighbors and
Planning Commission Minutes 8 April 24, 1989
. the proponent related to the possible selling price of the
lots and the impact of removing the additional lot as the
neighbors had recommended . Dodge concluded that the
proponent had stated that a selling price could not be
determined at this time .
Fell stated that several alternatives had been discussed
and believed that to ask the proponent or Staff to rework
the plan tonight would be unfair to all parties concerned.
Fell stated that even though the lots would not line up
perfectly, he believed the plan as proposed would be a
nice development.
Ruebling asked if the side yard setbacks could be changed.
Uram said that with 90 foot lots, the homes could be 60
feet wide and suggested that 40 feet be maintained between
the homes . Sandstad asked how the proponent and the
neighbors viewed this suggestion. Cardarelle stated that
it would be difficult to enforce specific setbacks for
these individual lots . Uram stated that it would be
difficult to enforce the wider side yard setbacks and
would not be practical . A suggestion made by one of the
residents to have the lot widths increased to 115 feet
would be more feasible than the wider side yard setbacks .
Gary Hertz, 15851 Summit Drive, stated that he did not see
the need to take the entire 80 feet. Hertz suggested
taking approximately 40 feet from the back of the 3
east/west lots and issue variances . Hertz asked if the
current proposal would meet the 50 foot setback on the
corner lot. Uram replied that if the right home was built
on the lot.
Dodge asked Cardarelle what his thoughts were related to
the neighbors suggestion to take 40 feet from the back of
the three lots . Cardarelle stated that the three lots
would not meet the R1-22 zoning and would require
variances . Cardarelle stated the proponent would have to
make the decision.
Bill Sauro, 8750 Meadowvale Drive, stated that he believed
that the new proposal to reduce the three lots by 40 feet
and issue variances would be acceptable to the other
neighbors; however, he believed a consensus of the
neighbors would be needed. Sauro believed that by
increasing the width of the side yard setbacks, it would
be better to have the houses placed vertically on the
lots, which would be inconsistent with the existing
neighborhood. Sauro believed the best plan was to
increase the width of the lots along Meadowvale Drive and
allow the variances for the 3 east/west lots . Sauro added
• that he did not believe this would affect the selling
price of the lots.
Planning Commission Minutes 9 April 24, 1989
• Cardarelle stated that the zoning could be left at R1-
13. 5, which would eliminate the need for the variances.
Dodge was concerned about the visual impact of large homes
on the narrow lots .
Gary Hertz stated that he would like to see the zoning R1-
22.
Ruebling stated that he was concerned about the lots size
disparity with the Purcell lots if the lots along
Meadowvale were increased in width and the 3 east/west
lots reduced in length. Ruebling preferred the plan to
rotate the two lots to face Meadowvale Drive or to remove
an additional lot.
Fell stated that he preferred the rotation of the two
lots . Fell complimented the neighbors on their
involvement .
Sandstad commented that he believed that variety in the
platting of lots created interesting developments .
MOTION:
Fell moved, seconded by Sandstad to close the public
• hearing. Motion carried 5-0-0.
MOTION:
Fell moved, seconded by Sandstad to accept, without
prejudice, the withdrawal of the request for Zoning
District Change for Red Rock View Addition. Further, to
recommend to the City Council approval of the request of
Mark Olsen for Preliminary Plat of 5. 7 acres into nine (9 )
single family lots to be known as Red Rock View Addition,
based on revised plans dated April 18, 1989, subject to
the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated April 7 and
21, 1989, and with the addition that Lots 2 and 3 be
rotated to face Meadowvale Drive . Motion carried 4-1-0.
Dodge voted "NO" . Dodge stated that she voted no to give
merit for discussion at the City Council level of the 125
foot lot width.
C. 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 continued public
hearing.
Bill Gilk, proponent, stated that he had acquired the
Strawberry Hill property from Wittenberg . Gilk said that
he had reservations about withdrawing the request for R1-
Planning Commission Minutes 10 April 24, 1989
. 13. 5 zoning. He said that variances would be necessary
with the R1-22 zoning; however, if the property remained
R1-13. 5 the same development could be accomplished without
variances . Gil'k noted that the original plan had been for
7 lots and had been revised to include 5 lots averaging
22,000 square feet with the exception of the Wittenberg
lot which contained 18,900 square feet, which would
require a variance . The utilities would come from County
Road #4 and the Fairfield project.
Uram addressed the proponents concern regarding the
variance for Lot #4 . The location of the pond on lots 1
and 2 created the difficulty related to the topography of
the land . Uram stated that the variance would be
justified because of the pond location. Uram noted that a
question of spot zoning could arise if R1-13 . 5 zoning were
allowed for this property when all the adjacent property
was zoned R1-22. .
Sandstad asked if the lots could be arranged to maintain
the ponding and the R1-22 zoning. Bob Smith, representing
the proponent, replied that the area was land locked and
needed the area for storm water drainage.
Uram noted that the Staff recommendations should include
the requirement of a variance on Lot 4 which related to
the lot size .
Ruebling asked Uram exactly who the City would be dealing
with, Dennis Wittenberg or Scenic Heights Investment .
Gilk replied that a contractual agreement had been
prepared at this time between himself and Dennis
Wittenberg; however, the proposal tonight would be
approved at the request of Dennis Wittenberg.
MOTION•
Fell moved, seconded by Ruebling to close the public
hearing. Motion carried 5-0-0.
MOTION•
Fell moved, seconded by Ruebling to accept, without
prejudice, withdrawal of the request for Zoning District
Change for Strawberry Hill . Further to recommend to the
City Council approval of the request of Dennis J.
Wittenberg for Preliminary Plat of 3 . 2 acres into five ( 5)
single family lots to be known as Strawberry Hill, based
on revised plans dated April 18, 1989, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Reports dated April 7 and 21,
1989, and to include the addition of Recommendation #4 to
read : A variance would be required for Lot 44 related to
Lot size . The rational to support the variance should be
noted as : The size of Lots 1 and 2 can not be reduced and
Planning Commission Minutes 11 April 24, 1989
the square footage added to Lot 4 due to the ponding
requirements . Motion carried 5-0-0 .
D. 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 15 single
family lots, 2 outlots, and road right-of-way. Location:
East of County Road #4, north and east of Lake Shore
Drive . A continued public hearing.
Gilk stated that he questioned the wisdom of maintaining
the R1-22 zoning. He noted that with R1-13 . 5 only two
variances would be necessary; one for his home, and one
for Lot 2 to allow for an 82 ' lot width.
Bob Smith, representing the proponent, stated that the
average lot size would be 35, 000 square feet . The plan
had been revised to remove 2 lots . Three variances would
be necessary with the R1-22 zoning; one shoreline variance
and two lot size variances.
Uram reported that the variances for Lots 1 F 2 were
necessary due to the location of the streets, a variance
was required for the existing home site setback, and a
variance for the 82 ' lot width on Lot 2 . Uram stated that
the rationale by Staff was that it would be more
appropriate to request these variances than to change the
zoning on the entire parcel . Uram stated that Staff
recommended approval of the plan based on the Staff Report
of April 21, 1989 .
Fell asked Uram if the Board of Appeals would take into
consideration Gilk 's concerns regarding the variances for
the two lots what options would be available to the
developer . Uram replied that the Board of Appeals may not
find the variances acceptable and then the proponent could
drop an addition lot or request the R1-13 . 5 zoning . Fell
asked if the Planning Commission should assume that this
is the most appropriate action. Enger replied that the
proponent would also be able to appeal the Board of
Appeals decision to the City Council if the variance were
denied . Fell stated that it appeared that Gilk was
uncomfortable requesting the variances and questioned if
other alternatives were possible. Enger replied that he
believed the variance approach to be the most expedient
and best solution for both the developer and the City.
Enger added that the City Council had indicated the
preference of the City was to preserve the larger zoning
districts and offer variances.
Sandstad asked if the developer or the City had considered
• the property in Block 3 as public space . Gilk replied
that the area was heavily wooded and secluded because of
the trees . Sandstad asked Uram if the property would be
Planning Commission Minutes 12 April 24, 1989
too small for the City to consider of value for public
space . Uram replied that this had not been considered.
Gilk noted that part of the parcel was also zoned Rural .
Ruebling stated that this would change the request for
rezoning. Uram stated that the proponent was correct and
the wording would need to be changed for the appropriate
motions.
Nancy Nicklay, 16011 Lake Shore Drive, asked if the letter
to Harry Rogers would become part of the record related to
the road alignment. Uram stated that the letter was
considered part of the record. Nicklay added that an
agreement had been worked out with Harry Rogers and the
City which had contingencies.
Sandstad asked Nicklay if she favored this project.
Nicklay replied that she did favor the project and added
that was why so much time had been spent on the road
alignment.
MOTION•
Hallett moved, seconded by Fell to close the public
hearing. Motion carried 5-0-0.
• MOTION•
Hallett moved, seconded by Fell to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request for Red Rock Shores for a
Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-22 on
approximately 11.99 acres and accept, without prejudice,
withdrawal of the Zoning District Change request for Red
Rock Shores from R1-22 and Rural to R1-13 . 5 on
approximately 8 acres, based on plans dated April 18,
1989, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report
dated April 7 and 21, 1989 . Motion carried 5-0-0 .
MOTION•
Hallett moved, seconded by Fell to further recommend to
the City Council approval of the request of Scenic Heights
Investment for Preliminary Plat of 19 . 77 acres into 15
single family lots to be know as Red Rock Shores, based on
revised plans dated April 18, 1989, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated April 7 and 21,
1989 . Motion carried 5-0-0 .
E. EDENVALE II BUSINESS CENTER, by Hoyt Development . Request
far Site Plan Review within the I-2 zoning district on
4 . 59 acres for construction of a 70, 528 square foot
• office/warehouse . Location: 14500 Martin Drive . A public
hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes 13 April 24, 1989
Franzen reported that the City had approved this project
in 1984 and that due to the new Site Plan Ordinance the
project was required to come back through the process
again.
Scott Anderson, representing the proponent, stated that
the project was being sold to Hoyt Development . He added
that the only change to the plan was to bring the project
into compliance with the new Landscape Ordinance .
Anderson stated that the space was 50 to 70e preleased at
this time .
MOTION:
Fell moved, seconded by Ruebling to close the public
hearing . Motion carried 5-0-0.
MOTION•
Fell moved, seconded by Ruebling to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Hoyt Development for
Site Plan approval of Edenvale II Business Center within
the I-2 Zoning District on 4 . 59 acres for construction of
a 70, 528 square foot office/warehouse building, based on
plans dated April 7, 1989, subject to the recommendations
of the Staff Report dated April 21, 1989 . Motion carried
• 5-0-0.
F. EDEN SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER, by The Robert Larsen
Partners . A request for Planned Unit Development Concept
Amendment Review and Planned Unit Development District
Review on 9 . 59 acres with waivers, Zoning District
Amendment in the existing C-Reg-Ser zoning district on
9 . 59 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 11 .72 acres into 3
lots for construction of a 60,794 square foot commercial
development . Location: Northeast corner of Highway #169
and Prairie Center Drive. A public hearing.
Franzen reported that this project had been approved by
the City Council approximately 2 years ago and due to the
new Site Plan Ordinance was going through the process
again. The plan has been changed to include 2 fast food
restaurants and a variance would be required for parking.
Kelly Doran, representing the proponent, stated that the
original plan had been approved back in 1985 but, because
of market condition changes had never proceeded . Doran
noted that the site plan had changed from the original .
David Shay, architect, presented the revised plan, which
included the 2 fast food restaurants along Highway # 169 .
• A focal point had been developed at the center by the
creation of a tower . All the buildings were of the same
architecture and exterior material . Pedestrian traffic
Planning Commission Minutes 14 April 24, 1989
would be encouraged with a canopied walkway. Extensive
landscaping would be provided throughout the center. The
top of the focal tower would be made of a vinyl material
which would produce an illuminated affect at night.
Sandstad asked if the tower would be one-story. Doran
replied yes.
Franzen reported that two revisions needed to be made
prior to review by the City Council . The sign plan needed
to be revised and the architectural plan for the free-
standing facilities needed to be addressed .
Doran stated that the proponent was comfortable with the
Staff recommendations . McDonald 's and Taco Bell, which
were the proposed tenants at this time for the fast-food
facilities, understood that architectural compatibility
would be required.
Hallett asked how much of the space was preleased. Doran
stated that the center would be 50% preleased before
construction. Hallett stated that this was a beautiful
site but, Eden Prairie did not seem to be able to attract
the quality stores . Doran replied that Eden Prairie was
coming to a crossroads in it 's retail development and
developers were now seeing a rebirth of retail businesses
. in the area . Doran noted that a commitment had been made
by the City and the developers to make the major center
area work . Hallett believed that the Lunds store and the
Library were a nice addition to the area. Hallett asked
Doran if the fast-food facilities would fit in with the
rest of the area . Doran replied that the proponent had
agreed not to minimize on landscaping around the free-
standing facilities .
Ruebling asked what the sign options would be . Doran
replied that each restaurant could have individual signs
or they could share a sign. Doran added that if the
restaurant decided to have individual signs they had
agreed to forego signage on the buildings . Ruebling asked
if a sign would be placed at the intersection. Doran
stated that a sign would be placed at the entrance of the
center to identify the three major tenants .
Sandstad asked Franzen what the basis was for the parking
space variance . Franzen replied that City Code required 5
parking spaces for every 1000 square feet of retail space
and 1 space for every 3 seats in the fast-food
restaurants . The developer was providing 5 .5 spaces per
1000 square feet . The proof-of-parking for 24 spaces was
in the loading area, which could not be counted. Franzen
stated that shared parking could be an option. Enger
noted that Staff had counted the restaurants at 1 for
every 2 seats, while the Ordinance required 1 for every 3
Planning Commission Minutes 15 April 24, 1989
• seats . Enger added that the proponent met the practical
application for parking.
Sandstad asked if Staff could predict the stacking
distance . Franzen replied that stacking distance problems
usually occurred in the owners parking lots . Enger added
that 12 car stacking was typically used .
Doran noted that the proponent had an easement agreement
with Homart Development for overflow parking.
Fell asked if the recommendations reflected the
recommendation that the green space not. be reduced .
Franzen replied that this was not clearly addressed and
should be included in recommendation # 4 and should read :
. . . review of the site plan and architectural plan and
that the green space should not be diminished with any
future plan for the free-standing sites .
Ruebling asked if Staff was requiring an irrigation
system. Doran replied that the proponent would be
installing an irrigation system even if Staff did not
recommend one . Enger stated that the City Council had
asked Staff to look into requiring developers to install
irrigation systems and would be taking this item to the
Developer 's Forum and would possibly recommend an
. Ordinance change at a later date . Enger added that
typically sites with irrigation systems did much better
than those without and that Staff would be looking into
the possibility of a reduction in the amount of plants
required if the developers installed an irrigation system.
MOTION 1•
Hallett moved, seconded by Fell to close the public
hearing. Motion carried 5-0-0.
Planning Commission Minutes 16 April 24, 1989
MOTION 2•
Hallett moved, seconded by Fell to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of the The Robert Larsen
Partners for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment to
the Eden Square Planned Unit Development Concept for Eden
Square Shopping Center on 9 . 59 acres, based on plans dated
April 13, 1989, subject to the recommendations of the
Staff Report dated April 21, 1989, and the following ,
addition to recommendation #4 : that the green space
should not be diminished with any future plan for the
free-standing sites . Motion carried 5-0-0 .
MOTION 3 :
Hallett moved, seconded by Fell to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of The Robert Larsen
Partners for Planned Unit Development District Review and
Zoning District Amendment within the C-Reg-Ser District on
9 . 59 acres, with waivers, for Eden Square Shopping Center
for construction of a 60,794 square foot shopping center,
based on plans dated April 13, 1989, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated April 21, 1989,
and the following addition to recommendation #4: that the
green space should not be diminished with any future plan
for the free-standing sites . Motion carried 5-0-0 .
• MOTION 4:
Hallett moved, seconded by Fell to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of The Robert Larsen
Partners for Preliminary Plat of 11. 72 acres into three
lots for Eden Square Shopping Center for construction of a
60,794 square foot shopping center, based on plans dated
April 13, 1989, subject to the recommendations of the
Staff Report dated April 21, 1989 and the following
addition to recommendation #4 : that the green space
should not be diminished with any future plan for the
free-standing sites . Motion carried 5-0-0 .
G. CHASE POINT, by Crosstown Investors . Request for
Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Medium Density
Residential to Neighborhood Commercial on 7 .9 acres,
Zoning District Change from Rural to Neighborhood
Commercial on 2 . 78 acres, Preliminary Platting of 7 .9
acres into 2 lots, 1 outlot with variances to be reviewed
by the Board of Appeals for construction of a gas station,
and daycare facility. Location: West of Shady Oak Road,
north of the proposed City West Parkway extension. A
public hearing.
• Jim ostensen, proponent, stated that a Comprehensive Guide
Plan change was requested to rezone the property to
Neighborhood Commercial . The rationale for the rezoning
Planning Commission Minutes 17 April 24, 1989
request was that the property was located on three major
roads . Ostensen noted that traffic was a major concern.
Ostensen stated that excess capacity was available for
this area and believed that this project would not
overburden the area with traffic .
Ostensen, noted that there were several concerns raised by
Staff which the proponent needed to work out. One concern
was that the daycare center and Super America have similar
architecture . Ostensen stated that the daycare center and
Super America would use a similar exterior brick and would
co-ordinate the signage . Super America had agreed to use
a hip roof; however, Super America 's proposed roof would
be metal and the proposed daycare center roof would be
shingled. Ostensen believed the daycare center roof
should remain shingles due to its proximity to the
residential homes . He added that it would be very
expensive to propose a metal roof on the daycare center .
Ostensen stated that the proponent had worked extensively
on the site plan and had made the following changes to the
plan based on Staff recommendations:
1. The access road to the daycare center had been
changed to a cul-de-sac to act as a turn-around.
2. The internal circulation had been changed due to
the concern by Staff that the entrance required
• drivers to make a quick decision as to what island
they would use.
3. The lot had been made deeper .
4 . The distance between the front of the Super
America store and the islands had been increased
from 35 feet to 40 feet.
5. Turn lanes and a median had been incorporated into
the design.
Ostensen concluded by stating that he believed the
majority of issues rated by Staff had been addressed .
Sandstad asked what the adjacent land uses were . Ostensen
replied that approximately 8 acres was guided low density
residential, another 20 acres was vacant at this time and
guided low density residential, and the property to the
south of Medcom Boulevard was guided medium density
residential.
Franzen reported that two important decisions needed to be
made by the Planning Commission; if a Comprehensive Guide
Plan had been substantiated and how well did the site
plans meet the City Codes . Franzen noted that this site
had been guided medium density residential for some time .
The Comprehensive Guide Plan stated that a Neighborhood
• Commercial designation would require the facility to serve
the community. Franzen emphasized several of the points
for substantiating a Comprehensive Guide Plan change that
Planning Commission Minutes 18 April 24, 1989
• were outlined in the April 21, 1989 Staff Report. Franzen
stated that Staff was concerned about the traffic
generation from this development and added that this
proposal would use approximately 770 of the Reserved
Capacity. Franzen questioned if allowing this proposal to
use 77% of the Reserve Capacity would be fair to the other
property owners in the area. Based on Staff 's previous
observations, Franzen noted that convenience stores
typically generated the most traffic.
Franzen stated that when this proposal had first come in
there had been no co-ordination to tie the two sites
together . City West has similar types of architecture and
roof styles . Franzen believed there were still issues
which needed consideration. He added that the revision of
the entrance to the property was being presented to Staff
for the first time tonight and he would like to have time
to review this proposal before offering Staff approval .
Franzen believed that the revised entrance needed to also
be reviewed by the City Engineering Department .
Sandstad asked if the approval of the request for the
Comprehensive Guide Plan change would affect similar
properties near major roads . Franzen replied that to his
knowledge there were no other similar instances . He added
that most of the Neighborhood Commercial developments were
• located at the fringes of neighborhoods .
Ruebling asked how access would be gained to the Loosen
property. He did not believe that access by a private
road to a low density residential area was appropriate .
Enger replied that the City had not been desirous to
obtain the entire parcel . Enger added that the Loosen
parcel did have access via Old Shady Oak right-of-way or
at least access on paper . Enger said that access was
obtainable; however, not practical . Access would be
practical if the hill elevation was reduced and the hill
graveled or another possible access would be via other
properties to the south. Enger noted that the developer
had requested that the City vacate ownership on the east.
Ostensen stated that northern access would not be the
ultimate access to this property and added that access
would come through the Pauelka property. Ruebling asked
if only a temporary access was being created. Ostensen
replied that if the road was vacated as requested a new
access would be provided and the new alignment would
maintain the status quo.
Fell stated that he was concerned about the traffic
pattern at the daycare center for dropping off the
• children. Gene Peterson, major daycare developer in the
Twin Cities, stated that the average parking for daycare
centers was for 10 to 12 cars; this proposal provided 29
Planning Commission Minutes 19 April 24, 1989
parking spaces . Peterson said that there were pros and
cons for any parking lay out; however, he believed that
stacking of cars would be of concern rather than the drop
off . Fell asked how many parking spaces would be provided
in front of the building. Fell added that when adequate
parking space was not provided in front of the daycare
center children were walking across the traffic, which he
considered to be a dangerous situation. Peterson believed
that having the parents be able to park the car rather
than drop off the children to be a safer situation.
Ostensen added that it was the New Horizon's policy that
the parents had to accompany the children into the center
and could not drop the children off outside the facility.
Fell asked where the nearest franchise daycare center
would be to this facility. Ostensen replied at the Opus
Center; however, that facility was closing to move into
this location and added that the building needed to be
completed by September 1, 1989 .
Franzen reported that Staff had been recommending more
parking spaces for the new daycare centers being
constructed in Eden Prairie . Franzen suggested that if
the daycare center was shifted to the west an "L" shaped
parking lot or if the building could be moved further back
on the lot a "U" shaped parking area could be provided
• with designated spaces for employees .
Sandstad asked why the proponent believed this proposed
land use to be better than Medium Density Residential .
Ostensen replied that this property would not be a
desirable place to live due to the vicinity of the three
main roads and added that transition needed to be provided
back to low density residential . Sandstad asked if Staff
concurred that if the gas station and daycare center were
approved the property to the north was not appropriate for
Medium Density Residential . Enger replied yes .
Ostensen stated that the daycare project needed to start
as Noon as possible to meet the September 1, 1989 deadline
and asked if the Planning Commission would consider
approval of the land use now and approve a site plan at a
later date to allow time to work with Staff on the
unresolved issues . He said that construction would need
to begin by May 20, 1989 .
Dodge asked if Staff believed the Neighborhood Commercial
designation fit with this proposal . Enger replied that
the proposal for the daycare center did provide a needed
service for the community; however, he questioned if a gas
station was appropriate for this location. Enger stated
• that Staff was concerned about the amount of traffic
generation from a gas station at this location. Enger
believed that some compromising would be necessary for
Planning Commission Minutes 20 April 24, 1989
• this area.
Cliff Bodine, G400 Old Shady Oak Road, asked if City West
would extend to Old Shady Oak Road . Ostensen replied that
City West would go to Old Shady Oak Road. Bodine asked if
the elevation would be lowered . Ostensen replied that
this area had poor soil conditions and had therefore
surcharged the road; the road would be lowered to taper -to
Old Shady Oak Road. Bodine asked if the gas tanks would
be lower than the surcharge . Peterson replied that the
tanks would be above the surcharge.
Fell believed that there were several issues which needed
to be resolved .
Enger stated that Staff would like to review the revised
entrance plan with the Engineering Department .
Fell stated that he favored a continuance . Dodge
concurred and added that there were too many unresolved
issues .
Enger noted that there was usually a four week period
after a plan was approved before the proposal was
discussed at the City Council level .
• Hallett stated that he believed there was a possibility
for a Comprehensive Guide Plan change; however, additional
work was needed on the location of the building and the
parking.
Fell stated that the issue of the roofing material needed
to be resolved.
Ruebling stated that the proponent needed to address the
parking and traffic circulation for the daycare center,
the traffic generation issue related to the gas station,
and can a buffer and transition be created between this
development and the low density residential area .
Sandstad asked Benshoof if a more intense use of the
property was intended. Benshoof replied that the traffic
projections were based on this proposed plan.
Enger stated that a small shopping center could be built
on this property and added that other land uses needed to
be explored. Enger supported the daycare center proposal;
however, he was concerned about the potential amount of
traffic generation from the Super America. Enger noted
that the property south of City West Parkway would
probably not be developed as Medium Density Residential .
• Sandstad stated that he was comfortable with the daycare
portion of the proposal.
Planning Commission Minutes 21 April 24, 1989
. Fell asked if the Planning Commission should give
direction on the roof material . Enger replied that Eden
Prairie had tried to be consistent and create a good
image . Enger added that the roof was one way to make this
project come together; however, Staff was not stating a
preference related to metal or shingled, there just needed
to be compatibility. Peterson stated that the roof
material would be metal panel for the daycare center.
MOTION•
Hallett moved, seconded by Sandstad to continue this item
to the May 8, 1989 Planning Commission meeting and to
direct Staff to publish the proposal for the City Council
May 16, 1989 meeting and to further direct the proponent
to work with Staff related to the parking layout for the
daycare center, access and circulation for both sites,
traffic, road improvements, and the overall design
framework related to compatibility. Motion carried 5-0-0 .
V. OLD BUSINESS
VI . NEW BUSINESS
VII . PLANNER'S REPORT
• VIII . ADJOURNMENT
MOTION:
Hallett moved, seconded by Ruebling to adjourn the meeting at
11: 30 PM. Motion carried 5-0-0.