Loading...
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.