Planning Commission - 06/12/1989 AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, June 12, 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. DENWAL FORD, INC., by Eden Prairie Auto Properties, Inc. Request
for Planned Unit Development Concept Review and Planned Unit
Development District Review on 16.93 acres with waivers, Zoning
District Change from Rural to C-Reg-Ser on 10.28 acres, Zoning
District Amendment within the C-Reg-Ser District on 2.17 acres,
Preliminary Plat of 16.93 acres into 1 lot and 1 outlot for
construction of an auto and truck dealership. Location: North of
Plaza Drive, south of Valley View Road, east of the Prairie View
Shopping Center. A continued public hearing.
(7:40) B. BERGIN AUTO, by James J. Bergin. Request for Site Plan Review
within the I-2 Zoning District on 2 acres for construction of a
7,500 square foot addition to an existing building. Location:
Northwest corner of Martin Drive and Corporate Way. A continued
public hearing.
(7:55) C. EDEN PRAIRIE CENTER, for United Artist Theaters. Request for a
second free-standing pylon to advertise the United Artist Movies.
The sign is proposed at 249 square feet, 22 feet in height, 2'1"
wide between faces, and to be located at the Eden Prairie Shopping
Center's northeast entrance off Prairie Center Drive. Location:
1076 Eden Prairie Center. A public hearing.
(8:15) D. EDENVALE CROSSINGS, by Marcor Properties, Inc. Request for
Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Neighborhood Commercial to
Community Commercial on 7.5 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept
i Amendment on 21 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on
21 acres, with waivers, and Zoning District Amendment within the C-
Com Zoning District on 7.5 acres, Site Plan Review and Preliminary
Plat of 7.5 acres into 1 lot for construction of 38,056 square feet
of commercial uses. Location: East of Mitchell Road, southeast of
Martin Drive, Mitchell Road intersection. A public hearing.
Agenda
Monday, June 12, 1989
Page Two
(9:00) E. SHORES OF MITCHELL LAKE, by MR-USHOT. Request for Zoning District
Change from Rural and R1-22 to R1-13.5 on 94.8 acres with Shoreland
variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, and Preliminary
Platting of 94.8 acres into 175 single family lots, 3 outlots, and
road right-of-way, Environmental Assessment Worksheet Review on 94.8
acres for construction of residential development. Location: South
of State Highway-#5 and west of Mitchell Lake. A public hearing.
(9:45) F. SCHROERS PUD, by BDD Partnership. Request for Comprehensive Guide
Plan Amendment for the relocation of the Metropolitan Urban Service
Area (MUSA) Line to include an additional 32.2 acres of property,
Planned Unit Development Concept on 129.8 acres, Planned Unit
Development District Review on 129.8 acres, with waivers , and Zoning
District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 24 acres and from Rural to
R1-13.5 on 8.2 acres, Preliminary Platting of 129.8 acres into 77
single family lots, 3 outlots, and road right-of-way, Environmental
Assessment Worksheet Review on 129.8 acres for construction of a
residential development. Location: North of Rice Marsh Lake, just
east of the Chanhassen-Eden Prairie city limits. A public hearing.
V. OLD BUSINESS
VI. NEW BUSINESS
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVED MINUTES
MONDAY? JUNE 12, 1989 7 ; 30 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7600 Executive Drive
COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT; Chairperson Julianne Bye, Richard
Anderson, Christine Dodge, Doug Fell,
Robert Hallett, Charles Ruebling, Doug
Sandstad
COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF MEMBERS ; Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Don
Uram, Assistant Planner; Alan Gray,
City Engineer; Jean Johnson, Zoning
Administrator; Deb Edlund, Recording
Secretary
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL:
I . APPROVAL OF AGENDA
• MOTION•
Dodge moved, seconded by Sandstad to approve the Agenda as
published . Motion carried 5-0-0 .
II . MEMBERS REPORTS
Bye asked that all Commission members convey their vacation
schedules to Staff .
III . MINUTES
MOTION'
Sandstad moved, seconded by Hallett to approve the Minutes of
the May 22, 1989 Planning Commission meeting as published .
Motion carried 4-0-1. Fell abstained.
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. DENWAL FORD,—NC.-, by Eden Prairie Auto Properties, Inc.
Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review and
Planned Unit Development District Review on 16 . 93 acres
with waivers, Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Reg-
Ser on 10 .28 acres, Zoning District Amendment within the
C-Reg-Ser District on 2.17 acres, Preliminary Plat of
• 16 .93 acres into 1 lot and 1 outlot for construction of an
auto and truck: dealership. Location: North of Plaza
Drive, south of Valley View Road, east of the Prairie View
Planning Commission Minutes 2 June 12, 1989
• hopping Center . A continued public, hearing.
The proponent requested a 30-day continuance to complete
plan revisions . Franzen noted that the site plan may need
to be revised due to soil correction problems .
MOTION•
Dodge moved, seconded by Fell to continue the public
hearing to the July 10, 1989, Planning Commission meeting,
pending receipt and review by Staff of revised plans for
the Denwal Ford proposal. Motion carried 6-0-0 .
B. BFROIN AUTO, by James J . Bergin. Request for Site Plan
Review within the I-2 Zoning District on 2 acres for
construction of a 7, 500 square foot addition to an
existing building. Location; Northwest corner of Martin
Drive and Corporate Way. A continued public hearing.
Richard Anderson and Charles Ruebling arrived at 7 : 35 PM.
James Bergin stated that the request was to construct a
7500 square foot addition onto the existing facility. He
noted that the plan had been revised to include the
berming, hedging, and screening of the roof-top units as
• requested by Staff . The proponent was not prepared for the
metal panel; however, he believed this could be
accomplished. Bergin stated that he had requested to be
able to seed the property in lieu of sod, but if necessary
would comply with the sod requirement to code.
Fell asked if lighting had been addressed. Franzen
replied that the lighting would be the same as the
existing lighting which was within the City Code .
Franzen noted that the sodding and metal panel
requirements were required by ordinance .
Anderson asked if a sprinkling system would be required .
Franzen replied that an ordinance related to the
requirement of sprinkling systems was not in place at this
time. A sprinkling system was important when the property
relied heavily on screening by landscaping; however, this
project would be mainly screened with berming.
Dodge asked if the proponent had planned for a chain link
fence or a cedar fence. Bergin replied that there would
be a chain link fence with additional shrubs .
MOTION•
• Anderson moved, seconded by Fell to close the public
hearing. Motion carried 7-0-0.
Planning Commission Minutes 3 June 12, 1989
• MOTION:
Anderson moved, seconded by Fell to recommend to the city
council approval of the request of James J. Bergin for
Site Plan Review within the I-2 Zoning District on two
acres for construction of a 7,500 square foot addition to
an existing structure, based on revised plans dated May
31, 1989, subject to the recommendations of the Staff
Reports dated May 19, and June 9 . Motion carried 7-0-0 .
C. EDEN PRAIRIE CENTER, for United Artist Theaters . Request
for a second free-standing pylon to advertise the United
Artist Movies . The sign is proposed at 249 square feet,
22 feet in height, 211" wide between faces, and to be
located at the Eden Prairie Shopping Center 's northeast
entrance off Prairie Center Drive. Location: 1076 Eden
Prairie Center . A public hearing.
Gary Quick of United Artist stated that the plan was to
take down the existing sign and replace with a new smaller
sign and add an additional sign at Prairie Center Drive
Entrance .
Hallett asked how many additional theaters had been added.
John Rider replied four new theaters were located at the
• eastern theater location.
Jean Johnson, Zoning Administrator, reported that in 1979
the United Artists Theaters had requested a sign with Eden
Prairie Center identified at the top of the sign. A
permit had already been approved to take down the existing
sign and replace it with the new design. Johnson stated
that with the additional theaters being located at the
opposite end of the center Staff believed the additional
sign was important to give direction to the new theaters
and believed that the duplication of signs was
appropriate. The old sign would be taken down and
replaced with the new design which would have less square
footage than the existing sign.
Anderson stated that he did not fired a compelling reason
for two signs, he believed that one sign was sufficient.
Anderson stated that the commercial traffic traveled
mainly along Highway 169 and believed that most people
going to the theater would use the Highway 169 entrance .
Hallett questioned how this would be handled if it were an
entirely different company which had located in the
center. Anderson believed that it would be unlikely that
another company would build theaters in the center because
. of the knowledge that only one sign was allowed according
to they PUD, Anderson on further Cs}Ttmented that t}iose Coming
from other suburbs would use Highway 169 and the local
residents knew the location of the theaters and:
Planning Commission Minutes 4 June 12, 1989
• therefore, did not believe that the purl o5e of direction
was valid.
Bye stated that the east entrance was difficult to locate .
Bye believed that the situation was further complicated by
the center closing before the theaters .
Anderson state that a remodeled sign would be adequate .
Ruebling believed that the location of the sign would be
at the major entrance from Wert 78th Street. Ruebling
believed that because of the size of the center, the City
should do what it could to make sure the businesses have
the opportunity to be successful. Ruebling believed that
the "Ring road" should also be considered for regional
traffic. Given the proposed location of the sign close to
larger buildings and at a major entrance, Ruebling
believed the second sign would be appropriate .
Hallett stated that the fewer signs and the smaller the
signs the better . Hallett believed that because 50% of
the business for the theaters came from outside Eden
Prairie and because of the distance between the theaters
he would support two signs . Hallett also believed that
traffic along the "Ring Road" would increase. Hallett was
• concerned that by allowing the two signs it would open up
the opportunity for other requests from other businesses
in the center . Franzen replied that this was correct
because of the amendment to the PUD and therefore, the
reason to approve the change needed to be unique . Jean
Johnson replied that the unique circumstances were the
different hours of operation and the two separate
entrances . Johnson added that the same criteria would be
used for wall signs .
Hallett asked if the center had endorsed the second sign
and if other centers had requested two signs . Johnson
replied that the Eden Prairie Center endorsed the proposed
plan for two signs . The request from the other theaters
had not come before Staff at this time.
Anderson believed that convenience would make the center
successful. He also believed that a walkway should be
opened between the two theaters by the center and that the
theaters needed to identify their entrances.
Sandstad asked if a wall sign would work for the theater .
Quick replied pylon signs were both an advertising tool
and a tool to provide direction. Quick believed that the
major tenants were identified with the center and that
other signs would not be requested. Anderson stated that
• if the sign was to be for directional purposes, one sign
depicting both the east and west theaters would be
adequate. Sandstad asked Staff if they believed that a
Planning Commission Minutes 5 June 12, 1989
• wall sign would work . Johnson replied that staff. believed
that a wall sign would be too far from the road to be
readable .
Dodge stated that her Concerns were that of setting a
precedent and also safety issues . She said that when
people were not sure where they were going it increased
the chance of accidents .
Fell believed that the signs should be proportionate in
relation to the center; however, they seemed to be
drastically larger than City Code allowed and questioned
if the City Code should be looked at to accommodate larger
signs . Fell believed that the signs would help reduce the
confusion.
Hallett asked why staff was allowing the sign to be larger
than allowed by City Cade . Johnson replied that the old
sign would be reduced in size from the present 336 square
feet and the new sign would also be smaller than the
present sign. Johnson stated that the existing sign's
size had been approved as part of the original PUD.
Hallett commented that the purpose of the sign was to help
the customers locate the theaters, not for advertising
purpose: and; therefore, recommended reducing the size of
• the existing sign to within the limits of the City Code
and did not believe that a second sign should be allowed .
Ruebling stated that he concurred with Commission Hallett
on the reduction in the size of the sign and asked if the
height could be reduced by 2 feet to comply with City
Code. Quick stated that legibility of the sign was
important. He pointed out that the reading distance from
350 feet was an 8" letter and that 6" letters reduced the
reading distance to 200 feet, which would be the case if
the sign was reduced in size by 2 feet. Quick also rioted
that lettered signs were easier to read than flashing
signs . Quick believed that the new design was a more
organized sign than the existing one .
Fell stated that if the sign were too small it would be
difficult to read and because of the directional purpose
of the sign it could become a safety hazard if it were too
small to read. Fell believed that two signs would be
appropriate.
Ruebling asked if it would be possible to reduce the sign
by 2 feet . Quick replied that the cabinet was 9 foot tall
to accommodate 9 foot lamps . Ruebling then asked if the
stand could be 2 feet shorter on the east side . Quick
replied that this would not be a problem for the sign on
• the east side .
Planning Commission Minutes 6 June 12, 1989
MOTION
Ruebling moved, seconded by Hallett to close the public
hearing. Motion carried 7-0-0.
MOTION:
Ruebling moved., seconded by Hallett to recommend to the
city Council approval of the request of united Artists
Theaters for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment to
allow a second free-standing sign at Eden Prairie Center,
based on plans and written materials dated May 26, 1989,
subJect to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated
June 9, 1909 and that the height of the second sign be at
20 feet to be consistent with the City Ordinance.
Sandstad stated that he would like the sign area also
reduced. Sandstad noted that the signs were for tenant
identification. Ruebling believed that the signs size
needed to be in relation to the facility and the buildings
surrounding it. Ruebling added that because of the nature
of the sign it needed to be this size to accomplish what
it was designed for. Ruebling believed that it was
sufficient that the existing sign was being reduced in
size by approximately 1/3 and because of the increase in
• traffic volumes and the increase from 4 to 9 theaters two
signs would be appropriate .
Dodge asked Johnson what size Staff }relieved the sigh
needed to be to be effective. Johnson replied that if the
size were reduced it would be less effective . Johnson
added that by dropping 2 feet the eastern sign would meet
City Code, which did have merit; however, this was a
regional center and other tenants would have difficulty
meeting the criteria for this type of sign. Johnson
stated that Staff believed that the sign would be
appropriate in relationship to the size of the site and
that the change would not be significant. Dodge asked if
a reduction in square footage would be beneficial .
Johnson replied that if the sign was scaled down the
readability would not be there . Franzen stated that
because of the speed of the traffic on Highway 169 the
sign needed to be readable at a greater distance; however,
at the other entrance the need would not be the same.
Franzen suggested that if 6 inch letters could be read at
200 feet the size of the second sign could be reduced.
Anderson asked if the location of the bank building
coming from the north would block the view of the sign.
Johnson replied that because of the building setback
requirements the sign would be visible .
Planning Commission Minutes 7 June 12, 1989
• AMENDMENT TO THE PREVIOUS MOTION:
Ruebling moved, ,seconded by Hallett to change the sign at
the easterly location from 8" letters to 6" letters which
would reduce the size by approximately 25%.
Fell stated that he approved of the sign and the original
size because of the directional purpose and; therefore,
would vote no because of the newly proposed reduction in
size.
Ruebling stated that the rationale for the size reduction
was the slower traffic to the east and believed that the
sign could serve the same purpose as the sign on Highway
169 with a smaller size.
Hallett believed that the sign would be blocked by the
bank on the Borth and the curve in the other direction.
Ruebling believed that because of the setback requirements
the sign would be visible .
Amendment to the Motion Carried 5-2-0, with Bye and Fell
voting "NO" .
vote on the original motion 6-1 with Anderson voting "NO" .
Anderson believed that the criteria could easily fit the
restaurants at the center. The sign should be within City
Code . The purpose of direction could be accomplished in
other ways rather than a sign. The center could leave
open an access between the two theaters .
Ruebling did not believe this to be setting a precedent
because of the nature of the theater business . The center
currently had a policy regarding wall signs and the two
locations within the same facility warranted the use of
two signs.
Bye voted against the amendment because of the reduction
in size .
D. EDENVALE CROSSINGS, by Marcor Properties, Inc. Request
for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Neighborhood
Commercial to Community Commercial on 7. 5 acres, Planned
Unit Development Concept Amendment on 21 acres, Planned
Unit Development District Review on 21 acres, with
waivers, and Zoning District Amendment within the C-Com
Zoning District on 7 . 5 acres, Site Plan Review and
Preliminary Plat on 7 . 5 acres into 1 lot for construction
of 38,056 square feet of commercial uses . Location: East
of Mitchell Road, southeast of Martin Drive, Mitchell Road
intersection. A public hearing.
Franzen reported that the property was to be developed a5
a strip retail center with a free-standing two-story
Planning Commission Minutes 8 June 12, 1989
office building and a gia5 Station; Otaff had tieb-n working
with the proponent since January. The project was
complicated by road system problems because of the
Mitchell Road and Highway 212 upgrade .
Jim Winkels, representing the proponent, stated that the
project was proposed as a small retail center, small
office complex, and a convenience gas station. The
feasibility of the project from a marketability study was
good and believed to be compatible iblt_ with surrounding land
uses . The proponent proposed to dedicate 2. 5 acres to
the City to accommodate the Purgatory Creek area and the
easement for the high pressure watermain. The proponent
had contacted the property owner to the north and was
requesting a PUD change on the entire parcel. The Mexican
Village area would be revised to provide a better access .
Winkels stated that approximately . 6 of an acre could be
lost from the front portion of the property due to the
proposed road improvements proposed by MnDot. The long
terra plan was that Pheasant Run and McDonalds would be
removed entirely. The short term solution was to provide
better access . Revised plans had been submitted in
response to staff 's concerns. Winkels believed that the
project was appropriate for this area and a very workable
project.
• Darrell Anderson, architect, stated that the southern
proportion of the original PUD was already developed . An
off-ramp was proposed for this area as part of the
Mitchell Road project. The proponent had received
preliminary approval of the road systems . The road
alignment had been addressed with only minor details to be
worked out with the adjacent property owner . The
proponent 's proposed road system would match the grade of
the road system proposed by MnDot.
Hallett asked what was proposed on the property to the
north. Winkels replied that the property would probably
be a fast food restaurant and a convenience gas station.
Winkels stated that MnDot wanted to provide an access from
the north to the south throughout the PUD. The proponent
currently proposed a private road; however, would give
public easements back to the City.
Darrell Anderson stated that all three building would have
the same architectural characteristics . The parking area
at Mexican Village would be moved due to the road
alignment being moved over approximately 100 feet . The
property to the north would have a direct connection to
Mitchell Road as it exists today and then curves back to
• the proposed future connection. The sidewalk system would
be provided as recommended by staff. The proposed
building area would only cover approximately 20% of the 4
acres left to develop. 181 parking stalls would be
Planning Commission Minutes 9 June 12, 1989
is provided. There was a conflict with the proposed road
alignment at Greenstreets; however, he believed a
compromise could be made . The lighting would be provided
through a combination of pylon and soffit lighting. The
trash areas would be enclosed. The landscaping would be
terraced and the berm built up to match that of the
highway. Anderson stated that the berm would not exceed 3
to 1 slopes. Anderson added that the landscape plans
would be revised.
Hallett asked if pedestrian trails would be provided from
the creek area to the building. Anderson replied that a
trail system had not been provided to the building by the
proponent .
Darrell Anderson stated that a canopy would be extended
around the ends of the building. The exterior of the
building would be brick with wood inserts. The gables
would be of cedar shingles . The residential character of
the building would be extended to the creek side view.
Whitney Peyton, representing the proponent, stated that
the original PUD spoke to theaters, bowling alleys, and
racquet ball clubs which all now currently existed within
other areas of Eden Prairie. A prospective tenant for the
• office building would occupy approximately 75% of the
space. Approximately 30% of the retail strip was being
considered for leasing. Three gas stations were presently
looking at the location for a convenience gas station.
The demographics of the property were good for development
and he predicted a positive retail growth. Peyton
believed that the majority of the complicated issues had
been resolved and that the development would have a
positive impact on the community.
Franzen reported that 5 issues heeded to be addressed with
the project:
1. Comprehensive Guide Plan Change.
2 . PUD Amendment .
3 . Site Plan Change .
4 . Traffic and access to and from the property.
5. What don't we know about the project.
Franzen stated that the Site Plan Change still had details
to be worked out as well as code requirements . He added
that the revised plan had been given to Staff today. The
traffic numbers work but internal circulation does not
work well . Franzen said that what was not known at this
time was the architecture of the fast food restaurant and
the gas station and recommended that a specific approval
for architecture not be approved and that the projects be
required to come back through the gito Vlan 5eviaw pros'_e5s
for the two sites: north of this project.
Planning Commission Minutes 10 June 12, 1989
fir . 9honiaher,t landowner to the rierth and 5€uth, 5 tated
that he supported that project and believed that with the
entire PUD concept the potential traffic problems would be
solved . The three acres to the north were reserved for
the existing McDonalds to relocate with the remainder of
the site to the north to be a PDT? type of facility. The
south portion of the property was proposed as office use;
however, a specific tenant was not proposed at this time .
Fell stated that a lot of issues had been raised in the
staff report and questioned if all the issues could be
addressed prior to the City Council review. Franzen
replied that the Staff Report had been written based on
the original plate and the revised plan had Just been
presented to Staff today. Bye recommended a continuance .
Hallett stated that he would not be prepared to vote on
this item tonight . Franzen believed that the first issue
was whether or not the Planning Commission was comfortable
with the PUD Amendment and comprehensive Guide Plate
Change. Franzen added that a lot of progress had been
made within the last week and it appeared that change:
could be made without completely changing the site Plan.
Franzen believed that a two week continuance would be
appropriate to address the issues .
Fell stated that he did not have a problem with the
Comprehensive Guide Plan Change or the PUD Amendment;
however, he was concerned about the number of issues and
would like further clarification before City Council
review.
Sandstad stated that the concept was good. He questioned
if the semi loading area was big enough. A Benshoof
representative stated that there would not be significant
semi truck traffic and with the proposed limited use it
could be accommodated.
Dodge asked if after MnDot had taken some of the parking
area and part of the corner of the building if there would
be any greenspace left after completion. Winkels replied
that greenspace would be provided.
Hallett questioned if a pedestrian access should be
provided. Franzen replied that a short section of trail
would be needed to accommodate a connection to the
existing trail . Hallett asked if the proponent should be
responsible for the installation of the trail . Franzen
replied that Edenvale had been reminded of its commitment
for the trail and that a more definitive recommendation
would be forthcoming from the Parks, Recreation and
Natural Resources Department.
• Hallett then asked if proof of parking is being provided
to meet code. Franzen replied that the actual and proof
Planning Commission Minutes 11 June 12, 1989
• of parking met code .
Hallett commented that he supported the Comprehensive
Guide Plan Change and the PUD Amendment.
Ruebling asked if the Kindercare concerns had been
addressed. Franzen replied that the letter had been
received Friday after the Staff Report had already been
prepared. Ruebling recommended that the proponent address
this issue at the next meeting.
commissioner Anderson asked if the traffic consultant had
reviewed the new access and questioned if 3 convenience
gas stations were necessary in this area . Peyton replied
that the market would dictate the need; however, it
appeared that there was a preceived shortage of
convenience gas stations in Eden Prairie.
Bye requested that more definite information be provided
regarding signs .
MOTION'
Hallett moved, seconded by Sandstad to continue this item
to the June 26, 1989 Planning Commission meeting. Motion
carried 7-0-0.
E. SHORES OF MITCHELL LAKE, by MR-USHOT. Request for Zoning
District Change from Rural and R1-22 to R1-13 . 5 on 94 .8
acres with Shoreland variances to be reviewed by the Board
of Appeals, and Preliminary Platting of 94 . 8 acres into
175 single family lots, 3 outlots, and road right-of-way,
Environmental Assessment Worksheet Review on 94 .8 acres
for construction of residential development. Location;
South of State Highway 45 and west of Mitchell Lake . A
public hearing.
Lee Johnson, representing the proponent, stated that the
project would develop in three stages, with the 1st phase
proposed for approximately 45 units to correspond to the
construction of the service road for Highway 5. The 2nd
phase of approximately 90 units would close the loop back
to Dell Road. Johnson proposed that construction and
grading be in conjunction with the Highway 5 improvement
project.
Jack Buxel, architect, explained the topography of the
proposed site, noting that there were no soil problem
areas defined. Buxel then presented the tree inventory
plan. The project was designed to have three distinct
marketing levels of homes based on the topography of the
• land. 8uxel presented that pl_an5 noting 5pecifically the
lakeshore portion of the project which depicted 18
lakeshore lots, 9 lakeview lots, and 5. 5 acres to be
Planning Commission Minutes 12 June 12, 1989
• dedicated aB a City Valk; A trail Was propo5ed to cot neet
the park to the south and the park to the north. Five
foot sidewalks were also proposed for some sections of the
internal loop system.
Buxel noted that an issue raised by Staff was the number
of cul-de-sacs throughout the subdivision. He explained
that the three cul-de-sacs in the northern portion of the
project were dale to the location of Highway 5, several of
the cul-de-sacs could become through streets; however,
several lots would be lost. Some private roads could be
used in lieu of the cul-de-sacs .
Buxel noted that a second issue of concern by Staff was
the amount of grading necessary. A chart was presented to
depict the buildable areas of the lots . There would be
extensive grading on 4 lots; however, Buxel did not
believed that the grading would come close to the 50% tree
loss estimated by Staff . He added that Staff 's concern
had been that the builders and homeowners would want
additional grading. Buxel believed that the phasing of
the project should not have to wait for the full extension
of Dell( Road.{ 1 y y } 7 qT 7
Buxel stated slut a �1�1�.se impact study gas being completed
• regarding the northern lots along Highway 5 . The
proponent was prepared to lower the knolls, berm and
landscape to help mitigate the noise levels; however, the
noise could not be completely mitigated by these measures .
Johnson stated that neighborhood meetings had been
conducted. He added that Mr . Kinney was not in favor of
the northern cul-de-sac in its present location and noted
that there was a possibility to use a private road in this
location. Johnson believed that it was important for this
road system to blend in with the southern road system. He
believed that the proposal did fit in with the City's
Comprehensive Guide Plan and the southwest Area Study.
Johnson further believed that the proposal addressed the
desires of the City, would be a great addition, and that a
sincere effort had been made to develop an excellent
project.
Franzen reported that 6 issues affected this project.
1. Shoreland ordinance . The proponent needed to
reduce the impact to the lakeshore by having fewer
lots, consideration of private roads for the
points, and adherence to the Shoreland ordinance .
2 . Tree loss . The City was concerned about the
preservation of trees and with the larger building
• pads, the tree loss would increase . The use of
private roads could be used to decrease the tree
loss .
3. Cul-de-sacs, The direction from the City Council
Planning Commission Minutes 18 June 12, 1989
• was to discourage unnecessary cul-de-sacs .
4 . The Southwest Area Study. Franzen stated that the
Southwest Area Study had addressed the need for
road improvements in this area before significant
development occurred. The purpose of the study
had been to make reviewing plans for this area
easier. He added that at some point there would
have to be a loop system back to Dell Road and
questioned how the second access would be
developed. It could be possible for the loop to
come through the Tandem development.
5. Noise Mitigation. Franzen reported that the noise
levels merited a noise assessment study.
6 . Sidewalks and Trails . The new area needed to have
sidewalks and trail connections made . He noted
that a trail connection had been proposed.
Bob Eckers., 1.8230 West 82nd Street, stated that he had
already paid to have the Dell Road upgraded several years
ago and was concerned about the proposed construction
traffic. Eckers believed that the project should wait
until Highway 5 was completed. He noted that Dell Road
was only 33 feet wide . Eckers also noted that this
project would take S to 4 years to develop and was
concerned about the construction noise never ending.
Glenn Fristed, 17247 West 78th Street, stated that the
Shoreland Ordinance was based on DNR classifications and
believed that the requirements should be upheld. He would
like to see a screening requirement added and the high
water mark setback requirement met.
Dodge stated that her main concern was the phasing of the
project. Johnson replied that the access to Highway 5
needed to be vacated and the new road was proposed to be
constructed next spring. The grading for the road system
would begin this fall . Johnson added that occupancy of
the domes would be timed with the completion of the
infrastructure and the connection to the trunk water . 90
lots would be proposed for the second year and the third
year would consist of the infill of the lots . Johnson
believed the connection to Dell Road needed to go to 82nd
Street. Dodge then expressed a concern regarding the
Shoreland Ordinance .
Hallett was concerned about the size of the lakehsore
lots . The original plan by the City was to have a trail
along the lake . Hallett believed that there were too many
homes planned along the lake and the building pads were
too small. Hallett further expressed a concern regarding
44% of the lakehhore land being dedicated for public
t use
and yet there was not public access tothe lake a1. this
time . Hallett believed that the City should receive
something in exchange for the variances .
Planning Commission Minutes 14 June 12, 1989
w lili riF Rtated that h@ did riot 5@e a reason to foula6oify
from an environmental to a recreational status . He
believed that the intensity along the lakeshore needed to
be spread out. Ruebling was concerned about the
relationship of this project to the phasing of the
Southwest Area Study. He added that this area was
developing faster than projected by the study. Ruebling
recommended a chart to outline milestones of the project.
The Highway 5 noise issue needed to be addressed and
sidewalks and trails deeded to be further defined.
Ruebling believed that a significant trail system was
needed along the lake - possibly not the entire lakeshore .
Anderson believed that too many cul-de-sacs were proposed
and was generally not in favor of the plan.
Fell stated that the phasing of the project was important
and would like to see something in writing. He believed
that the Shoreland ordinance should be maintained. Fell
added that the plan needed a lot of work .
Sandstad concurred with the concerns of the other
commissioners . Sandstad asked how many of the
developments in the City have met the Shoreland ordinance .
He asked for some background information.
Bye stated a concern about access to the area from only
one location. She concerned that access to the lake was
needed. Bye stated that a lot of time had been spent on
the Southwest Area Study and believed that the City should
work within guidelines .
Dodge stated that the project did not deserve a denial.
Fell believed that the proposal should be sent back to the
proponent.
Alan Gray, City Engineer, stated that it was important for
MnDot to have a graded roadway to these lots and to keep
the Highway 5 project on track . Gray believed that the
projects were worth working on at this time and that the
plans would fit in with future road alignments . Gray
noted that there was a possibility that the developers
could construct the roadway and be reimbursed by MnDot
with right-of-ways . Gray added that this could be
possible at least for the northern portion.
Johnson said that the lots were originally proposed at
40, 000 square feet. The southend of the lakeshore was
being proposed for the city park with a public access .
Johnson noted that the proponent had tried to give some
• lakeshore trail and some off-lakeshore trails . We traded
parkland. Johnson believed there should be plenty of
opportunity for this type of development.
Planning Commission Minutes 15 June 12, 1989
Hallett replied that the Planning commission was not
comfortable with the plan as proposed. Hallett believed
that expensive homes would be placed on small lake lots .
Bye stated that major revisions would be necessary before
the Planning commission could approve the proposal.
Johnson replied that he had not anticipated approval or
denial tonight.
Ruebling asked if the eastern development met the
Shoreland ordinance . Franzen replied that that portion of
the lake had been developed prior to the Shoreland
Ordinance . Uram added that Weston Bay was the latest
development and the lot sizes had been restrictive because
of the shape of the property; however, the west side of
the lake should meet the Shoreland Ordinance .
The commissioners referenced comments and concerns to the
following issues:
1. Shoreland Ordinance.
Ruebling believed that the shoreland ordinance should be
adhered to as it currently exists.
• Bye asked if there would be any trade offs for the
shoreland variance.
Hallett commented that he would only favor variances if
there would be trade-offs for possibly additional park
land. Hallett preferred a trail all along the lakeshore
and believed that too many lots were located on the
points.
Ruebling asked if Diller Park would have any affect on the
classification of the lake . Franzen replied that there
would be restrictions on the motor size allowed on the
lake .
Hallett was concerned about the potential for problems
later with the homes facing the park.
Bye believed that the proponent should adhere as much as
possible to the Shoreland Ordinance . She did not want to
see excessive tree loss and also believed that the
building pads were too small.
Ruebling stated that 25 of 00 lets had building depths
less than 70 feet.
2, Cul-de-sacs and roadways .
Bye believed that some private reads Lt}is_uld be looked at
to save more trees .
Planning Commission Minutes 16 June 12, 1989
Nuebling concurred with the Staff report regarding the
cul-de-sacs.
Fell believed that the short cul-de-sacs were acceptable;
however, the longer ones should be looked at further .
Dodge stated that the caul-de-sacs along Highway 5 made
sense to allow greater setback for noise mitigation.
Bye commented that more detail waB- necessary regarding the
phasing of the project and the road connections .
Sandstad believed that the noise assessment for the
property along Highway 5 was important .
3. Trails and sidewalks.
Bye believed that this was a safety and a transportation
issue and that sidewalks should be provided along at least
one side of all streets . The Commission concurred with
this recommendation.
MOTION:
Ruebling moved, seconded by Standstad to continue this
. item to the July 10, 1989 Planning Commission meeting.
Motion carried 7-0-0 .
F. SCHROERS PUD, by BDD Partnership. Request for
Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment for the relocation of
the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) Line to include
an additional 32 .2 acres of property, Planned Unit
Development Concept on 129 . 8 acres, Planned Unit
Development District Review on 129 . 8 acres, with waivers,
and Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9 . 5 on 24
acres and from Rural to R1-13 . 5 on 8 .2 acres, Preliminary
Platting of 129 . 8 acres into 77 single family lots, 3
outlots, and road right-of-way, Environmental Assessment
Worksheet Review on 129 . 8 acres for construction of a
residential development. Location: North of Rice Marsh
Lake, just east of the Chanhassen-Eden Prairie city
limits, A public hearing.
Fell and Anderson left at 11:15 PM.
Mike Black, representing the proponent, stated that the
proposed project would consist of 223 lots on 129 acres .
130 lots along the 3 perimeters of the property were
proposed for R1-9 . 5 zoning with 93 lots to be zoned R1-
13 . 5. Seven cul-de-sacs would be positioned throughout
the subdivision. Black stated that berming and
• landscaping would provide a buffer to the north. Two
trail connections would Ne provided with a sidewalk and
bikepath along Dell Road. Variances would be requested
Planning Commission Minutes 17 ,Tune 12, 1989
• due to the Shoreland Ordinance . Black stated that the
proponent had met with the DNR and in principal had agreed
that protection of the natural environment would be
provided. A buffer of open space would be provided along
the lakeshore. 50 foot building pads would be used with
the exception of 10 lots which required larger building
pads . Sanitary sewer would be provided by gravity flow to
two connections to the main interceptor . Black presented
the grading and landscaping plans. Black also reviewed
the proposed phasing of the project.
Dick Feerick presented the Planning Commission with a
handout regarding the MUSA Line change request . Feerick
believed that there was tremendous potential for
development in this area. Feerick stated that the
proponent planned to support the infrastructure . He
believed that there was sufficient justification for the
MUSA Line change . Timing of the proposed development was
important and Feerick said that the proponent would like
to begin grading on the property yet this year with
proposed occupancy of domes in 1990 . Feerick stated that
the proponent supported the trail system and was proposing
to contribute a significant amount of land for the system.
Uram reported that the MUSA Line change would only expand
the area by 16 acres : however, the total change would be
32 acres . Uram stated that approximately 100 acres would
remain outside the MUSA Line and therefore, it could be
possible to have requests yearly for MUSA Line changes .
Another issue for the Planning Commission to consider was
the recently completed Southwest Area Study. Uram noted
that this project would be outside the study area, but was
adjacent to Sub Area I . This project as proposed would be
one of the largest R1-9 . 5 zoning area in the city. The
average size for building pads were recommended at 70 feet
deep; however, 0 lots as proposed currently would only
have 50 foot building pads. . Uram believed that a cul-de-
sac in the southeastern portion of the project would have
a severe impact on the heavily wooded area. The proposed
project would require 32 Shoreland Ordinance variances,
with the proponent justifying these requests by a 30 acre
dedication of property to the City. Uram believed this
would be an opportunity to provide a trail along the lake.
The two main issues to be considered by the Planning
Commission was the MUSA Line expansion and if this project
should be subject to and included as part of the Southwest
Area Study.
Sandstad complimented the };proponent on the inclusion of
the trail along the lake. Sandsstad did not believe that
the Southwest Area Study could be ignored regarding this
Ruebling believed that based on the Staff recommendation
co X! � -'-I r� �", �I � "� is a) 41 -P
4m I rY�y, .4.) ,-i 0j-4-) ri Z --I -P .4 O O 17.1
,-I a)ri ,X;i .4-) 11) 3 -I-) U)r--I +-i 4 a) a) x •r-i -4-5 4 -N 0 3
,-► >4 414 rts L) O as rz m 4-:4 40 o (1) a-' z to �4 3 M ra W o
r^' r-t -P -I-:' IT, 4 a) r-i .Q 0 4--) 4-) .4 It O O rO O ::� (L) (1) to rEl r-i
N N O a) 4.- r-I 4 r-1 >4 3 = 1~ m 4 .,1 far () 3 x 44 to 4 rts a) rl ri
r-I a-)44-t P4 a- !=4 rO 4-5 4-5 0 4-5 O 4-,•4 M rO 4--N V) Ul 114 ?4 (d ?4 O 3 ?4 r-i O
-4 4-S O O .-1 rO a) Z x �4 r- r4, 144 r,, 3 M Rf U) 'z' 11 rO O .14 Q+ O fu 0 44
Q) z O 1= a) 0 tT'O 0 0 0] r--1 O a) 4 rO 3; •ri 04 to >Ii H 3 )4 •• O 4-) rO C4
ILI •r-i 4.4 r,M; rO y4 4 tU in !=4 : 4-:- �." r�rY 0 1~ ►n H :� O tT !4 4 r-I O
Wr 44--I JZ.4 0 rO ILI - rd Z it, • O rK 0 a) 0 O rO m > m ra m 4 O rO 3 04 >4 rd (a '+I -I-S
h f::� a) U 3 M 3 0 4-r-i ;14 >I ?14 3 tT ILI t:p O a? (U a) o o U r-i ,
rr_l rO rO rO O 0 4--' U nr-I :=44.) C4 a) z.. Y^, -I-) }4 -14 M U 't; rG5 �:s O a)
9z: O a) F-: ,-4 ILI 0:[ O r-I }4 4-) r1 rm. 0 rO to M H ru RS M ti) -I- O 4-5 O .4 (1) 04-) Z m
,:.:I rO 0 4 r-i x Z H a) 104 Wa N w M -1 4 m m N .4 .4 Z M 4 U r-i 4-) 4 rO •'-I U) 0 O
H O m 3 I7;, 0 M V. a-' 1040 a) U U ::4.4 a) to 4 -I- -V U) 3 () N r-+ -P 4 .4.) O ..-i .4-)
cl 11 4r' a) O --t ,:v O ,L) ""I O 5.4 x 4 ..'i (a •ri (1) r-i r-I 4 m a) O rO )-I a) --1 rO 4=' U
z O O U 4 ILI 4-�' .e' 3 ?4 as U r, a) 0j.4 4.5 4 0 N 3 4 q -•4 >i O O 44 44 4 O -P U) 4 V �3
ri 3 i-I 4 4 U 04-) 4 z 04 t3l 0 U 4-5 >1 a U) •ri U rO Q. a) ro 4 4 •ri ILI m
4+O rO at •r-t W-i (1) O -i z rO z w•r-i-P M 4 rO U) -P r. r..S" O H a-I O rt ro Iri 4•)
r-i U (1)•ri 4-' 44 �4 Z 4 a-5 44 M r-i ro 4-S � M -P 4-) a) ••-1 to �$ -P ?-i .-1 04 .« (n a) m tU -N U)
101 ro a) �_, )-t 0 44 4-:4 O, .ri .4-5 IV 4 .�." O O 3.5... to O 4-I O to 04 U (1) .r... rO d) 4 4 rO ITJ
m U) m w O•14 ml i)i is m t". U O .4.s t n 4-) 4 O P4 tT t n U IC' rO U -1-5 0 -P (1) ILI )•I
=, a :N ro•r'I m M ILI 4-' ❑.I '-"I (V x 3 4-5 ::% z x -P r>4 U) O 4 z ra a) O r-i O 4 .Sl. a) 1~ Iri 44
:r 044-5 3 4J �4 r;v, 4-) M :Z Pi tr a) W-+ O w-i M 4-5 ra U •ri •-1 �, a) .-" O r:' .0 ra O +5 O 04 0 r...
00 to a4 r-i 44 EO r� 4-5 r-i .1 5-i O U rO 00 4 4 4 -P ?-I .0 U O ?i•'1 -P ri) Rf 4-t O C4.H
ILI m 0 iT a) 044 �:) • 4 ru (L)-r-I 04.) a) 3 M a) -I-S .4 O O o -ri 4 3 O rO m -P :� r-1 0
= 04 m f.. O £.' L 4 -1 0] x rO t-'Is-_ 4 C4•ri rO 44 .4.) W -I-) U N N [} 4-) 4 -I-S O rt5 S.. O v 4 a) m (1)
4-j 4)•r-i tar W 4-' a) a) :D U 4-5 rO 0 3 •.-I 44 O -P M RS (1) -P r~ O r-i a) o .7 C 14
() 0]r-i rO M r>I 0 (1) tT: >C a) 'N m O a) o ow 0 LO t1) -4) to .4 -4.5 4 4) to •r-i ro 4 (L) •-)
6L4 .4 M 4 rO W 44 r-I 01 .4 z a) 11) > 4-' a) s: 4 4 5.t >1 • • .� a) 4.) •ri 0 a) 4-) Ln rd .4-+ "Cl ILI
0 4-5 M () 4 u;. O z=1 -1-5 a) 0 a) (L) ILI rp O 4.5-I+ M -P O W rn at -P 3 r-i 4.) O m U •.-i . •.-i ,:._. .4
L-H 44 Z M Z 0 r-1 s, r0 m•ri "E'. 11 U £.' a) 44 1 1 4 rO O co 01 a) 4 to rn 4 U) rO -I-=' -P
4-5 r.04 -r-1 Cr, a) 14-4 44 r-t 4 5 N r-I (Y 0 rO r- 0 a) e-1 r-i 4-3 -P a) 044 to m ru S., I ro r- a) 1 •-�
ILI ro-r-i tT I r,I') i)j O •ri M M 4--Na) ICY .^. 4-S O Z -4-5 04 • a W M O 4-) O -P •-t R4 4 ro r-i rti to T.' 3
tb e r=1 S..TG rH Z 4-' .!::" m O O.4 :z 0 ro m m rO .z O O m •r-i m CY (1) S4 O r
r-i I7'l .4.3 a) •rI a) W rt 0 'Li -4-5 U 0 Q4 Z k' O ro : 44 to a) a) 4-) -4-5 CO 4 -P rO a) 4-) CO -P rO 4- 04 9. rO
it! r. 4 rO U ,-i ;ON M 44 O a) a) .4 .>4 44 )44-) 4 ro N a) 4 th m 4,y •ri O 4-:1 0
4q rG 4s rO O a) 4-' () nCl .4 a) m rO 4 4.5 Z Z a)rO, rO M U .4.s . rO a) 4 Z rO 4--� N O a) m ? a) m 4s
0 4) 0 N (1) It, 4 I.r- 4-- -4.s .4 4:I 04-r-i it, -•-4 -4 0 4) a) a) :� .4.5 tU .4 U rO 3 U) -P .4 O .4 44 'i^I U
ITS rO Z 4-) 0 • O r•-i rO . Z a rLi .47 4-5 >4-P >4 M tT 4-5 4J .ri a) M rO .4 rO 44 ra a- M .4.5 I]; :
rO O M if? 4-) M Cr', O rO >4 It () 5-t 4-� ID to m -P 4-) r- rO O i•t 4 04.) 0 44 •ri 04 in 4 ' M
'-4.4 rm. • 0] O 1 144 (1) r-i Z Jc� a) 0 d.' Z 44 •ri W U) •ri a) SZ -P a) -4-5 () 44 ✓ O M O M rO 4.) •'-i Ir., 4.5
'.:.a 43 M Ol (0 rr,, 4-) .-i > .4.5 0 4-5 > r0l w m O its f. rO 5 M (L) x LH a) O H 04 N O 0 X.'.. 4,_. 07
a) U a) 1 3 a., U W a.) (L) 4 + 1 11) ILI W a) N • 00 O )-i N a) .4 N4 4 z •ri m a) N O 4-) -I-S 04--) In 4
ILI x ra M r1 4-:1 a) M --4 i>^4-:1 rO -V 3 > .`F... U a) M rO 4.3 U M •ri x -N 43 4- r-i !4 rO ?4 ru A O
t„, r 044 W t P fri to M fM r-i .4.5 IT $".. M O '1' z 0) 4 ri >1 t n r-i •r-I [!] (7 a) O rU Qi -4-5 4 R4 44 '.."".. U
U) ri r- 4�' 0 �rl a) U5 ki M rt: O 'rf' O ri if5 >1 a) (L) U) - 3 44 4 .4 -4 M 04 U) 0 O 0
O Il'.i •-.-i 4.)44•r-i i)A .4-5 > V .0 . U ro-P U) H 54 .4 M .X 44 >4 H M 4-) 4 4 rO irl O
-4-) �. U) U) O U) to IM 0] 0 ri ILI i4 >4 U 07 m � tU 4) ?i a) t-4 >i tt.5 a-5 t:n CT O a)
O CL, a) 4 a) ::5 a--'' a) 4-i -4-5 0 fr., o rO 0 41 a) -1-' 0] (L) a) .i~ O .4 -4-t -4N -'4 .4.) G]I O r-i 4) --i 4 4 4 4 4-5 .;;
4 ` 11 5-I z 3.1, O -P, 3 anti -4s Z- -i a) a)4--) "- m rr 4 3 -4-5 v-I 0) -u U -ri O 3 -P to U -r-i +-I N m -ri a) M )-I rO
-+ kv U IS.. 4.S... 0 4 rO .... a) 'Ti-r-1 4-) -.-1 r-1 U ILI -r-i O 3 4 .r•.. U rO ri 47 •rq U r-i a) i.) r-i ri a) o t-., at
£ M 04-) 0 ri .4_) ,-I .4-. r-i r-1 131 rrs r-i 4 (L) O'I 7e 47a a)-4_5 4 U) r-i C4 r-i 5-i a) 1~ a) >I.r- .4 A a U 4 rO
ILI "J rj O LO r-4 O ! ri ::5-.-1 U 44 O 44 r,-; O iU 00 0 z O 1~ r-i a) N > M M .4.) -I--) a) 4) (1) 4 ID 0
4 w tV m O 5 - 17.1. O 0 �Z, rt O ''-i O a) M 44 00 m .7y•ri O 00 O ro a) r- a) M .r-i •r-i -r-t r,; �( a) O a) Ij;I a)
O 4-:J M.S. M M ON x to .3 O x 3 G r-i m 04 rU G U 0' W P co oll U 3 U x N4 -4-5 rO 44 rO U 3 Ili C4 rO U 4 14 5:.
-4
O
U
ss
f~
rt
r-i
a,
Planning Commission Minutes 19 June 12, 1989
He believed that everything would tie together in an
acceptable fashion. Johnson found it to be illogical that
the interceptor sewer went through this property, which
was outside the MUSA Line, and could not be developed .
Rueblirig stated that the Dell goad assessment would use
part of a feasibility study. Gray stated that a
feasibility study for Dell Road was being prepared which
would provide more accurate information regarding the
alignment of Dell Read. He added that the City needed to
consider the assessment method and the financial
implications to the City.
Patton ;Mated that the proponent was trying to work with
Staff to help improve this area.
Bye stated that she would prefer to re-evaluate this
project after the Dell Road feasibility study had been
completed.
Dodge believed that there was merit in the MUSA Line
change . Dodge added that she would like the project
incorporated into the Southwest Area Study.
Hallett believed that further review of the project should
• not occur until the feasibility study was completed.
Franzen noted that Staff would know more about the Dell
Road alignment in approximately 80 days .
Rueblirig moved, seconded by Dodge to continue this item to
the July 10, 1989 Planning Commission meeting with the
direction of the discussion to address the appropriateness
of the MUSA Line change and the phasing of the project in
relation to the Southwest Area Study. Motion carried 5-0-
0.
V. OLD BUSINESS
VI . NEW BUSINESS
VII . PLANNER' S REPORT
VIII . ADJOURNMENT
MOTION:
Ruebling moved, seconded by Dodge to adjourn the meeting at
12 : 40 AM. Motion carried 5-0-0 .