Planning Commission - 08/14/1989 • AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, August 14, 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
A. July 10, 1989
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
*NOTE: THE TIMES LISTED BELOW ARE TENTATIVE, AND MAY BE SIGNIFICANTLY, OR LATER THAN
LISTED.
(7:35) A. 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, Site Plan Review 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 as
part of a 450 acre phased action E.A.W. for construction of residential
development. Location: South of State Highway #5 and west of Mitchell
Lake. A continued public hearing.
(8:15) B. 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 Review on 129.8 acres, Planned Unit Development
District Review on 32.2 acres with waivers, Zoning District Change from
Rural to R1-9.5 on 15.7 acres and from Rural to R1-13.5 on 8.4 acres, Site
Plan Review, Preliminary Platting of 129.8 acres into 76 single family
lots, 3 outlots, and road right-of-way, Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Review on 129.8 acres as part of a 450 acre phased action E.A.W. for
construction of a residential development. Location: North of Rice Marsh
Lake, just east of the Chanhassen-Eden Prairie city limits. A continued
public hearing.
• AGENDA
Monday, August 14, 1989
Page 2
(9:15) C. EDEN PRAIRIE RETAIL DEVELOPMENT (FESTIVAL CENTRE) , by Curt Johnson
Properties. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment and
Planned Unit Development District Review on 16.2 acres with waivers.
Zoning District Amendment within the C-Reg-Ser Zoning District on 16.2
acres and Site Plan Review on 16.2 acres for development of a 153,756
square foot commercial retail and entertainment complex. Location: East
of Plaza Drive and south of Valley View Road. A continued public hearing.
(9:45) E. A TO Z RENTAL AND EDEN PRAIRIE APPLIANCE, by Rome Development. Request
for Zoning District Amendment with in the C-Reg-Ser Zoning District on
1.67 acres, Site Plan Review on 1.67 acres for construction of a 21,014
square foot commercial facility. Location: South of Valley View Road,
west of Plaza Drive. A public hearing.
(9:55) D. CARDINAL CREEK 3RD ADDITION, by GAC Partners. Request for a Zoning
District Change from R1-13.5 to RM-6.5 on 1.21 acres for development of
three twinhome lots. Location: Stonewood Court. A public meeting.
V. OLD BUSINESS
VI. NEW BUSINESS
• VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION
.APPROVED MINUTES
NONDA r AUGUST 14, 1989 7 :30 FM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7600 EXeCUt'We Dri•rt=
COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chairperson Christine Dodge,
Richard Anderson, Robert Hallett,
Charles Ruebling
COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Julianne Bye, Doug Fell, Doug Sandstad
STAFF MEMBERS : Michael Franzen, Senior Planners Don
Uram, Assistant Planner; Alan Gray,
City Engineer; Deb Edlund, Recording
Secretary
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL:
I . APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION:
Anderson moved, seconded by Ruebling to approve the Agenda as
published . Motion carried 4-0-0 .
II . MEMBERS REPORTS
III . MINUTES
A. Kinutes_ of the July_10.._.1989 Planning-. Commission Commissi.on Meeting.
Ruebling moved, seconded by Anderson to approve the
Minutes of the ,July 10, 1989 Planning Commission Meeting.
Motion carried 3-0-1. Hallett abstained.
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. SHORES OF MITCHELL LAKE, by Mr . U-SHOT. Request for
Zoning District Change from Rural and R1-22 to R1013 . 5 on
94 . 8acres with Shoreland variances to be reviewed by the
Board of Appeals, Site Plan Review 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 as part of a 450 acre
phased action E.A.W. for construction of residential
development . Location: South of State Highway 45 and
west of Mitchell Lake . A continued public hearing.
• Lee .Johnson, representing the proponent, stated that a
tree inventory had been completed with the significant
amount of trees in the southern area of the project, along
Planning Commission Minutes 2 August 14, 1989
• the shoreline, and adjacent the existing hordes . The
project would total 175 lots .
.lack Buxel, representing the proponent, stated that the
southern tip of the parcel would be proposed as a City
Park . The proposed lots would be 125 feet wide and would
meet the Shoreland Ordinance setback requirements . With
the lots as proposed there would be 1 lot per 41, 000
square feet of lakeshore . The lakeshore homes would be
constructed by multiple custom home builders and the
internal loop would be constructed by Orin Thompson Homes .
The majority of the landscaping would be along the
northern portion of the project adjacent to Highway 5 and
along the western boundaries . Buxel noted a discrepancy
between the number of tree loss calculated by Staff and
the proponent 's figures . Twin City Testing was in the
process of completing a sound study.
Franzen reported that the following items needed to be
addressed prior to City Council review:
1 . Protect more trees . This could be accomplished
with a shared driveway and one less lot on the
wooded point.
2 . Modification to the tree replacement plan.
8 . The noise study should be complete and plans
• modified to comply with recommendations to
mitigate noise adjacent to Highway 5.
4 . Phasing of the project limited to 50 homes for
Phase I with a temporary loop road for emergency
vehicles .
5. Apply for shoreland and street frontage variances .
Anderson believed that there were too many issue: yet
unresolved to approve the plan at this time; specifically
the sound mitigation and the adherence to the Tree
Replacement Policy. Buxel replied that an agreement
between the proponent and Staff could be worked out prior
to Council review on these items . Anderson believed there
was a significant impact on the trees . Johnson believed
that the number of trees which would be lost would be less
than what Staff had projected. Franzen replied that the
burden of proof regarding the amount of tree loss was on
the applicant . The calculation of tree loss was
determined jointly by Planning and the City Forester .
Franzen recommended that the grading plan be revised to
show that more trees could be saved . Buxel replied that
the proponent would provide the extra detail as requested
by Staff .
Ruebling asked if the revised plan would include the
• recommendation for the shared driveway. Buxel replied
yes .
Anderson asked the proponent 's position regarding the
Planning Commission Minutes 3 August 14, 1989
• phasing of the project as proposed by Staff . Johnson
replied that the sewer connection would be coming from the
south. The project would begin with the construction of
the custom homes along the lakeshore . Johnson added that
the numbers could be held at 50 lots; however, he would
prefer the project begin with 72 lots . An east/west
service road would be constructed by MnDot and grading
would be required for the street and the sewer . Johnson
added that he would prefer not to be dependent on another
developer for road access .
Anderson asked Staff to explain the rationale for the
limit of 50 lots . Franzen replied that Staff was
concerned about too many lots at the end of a 1 mile long
dead end cul-de-sac . He added that a temporary road to
82nd Street could provide emergency vehicle access;
however, this plan had not been reviewed by public safety.
Anderson believed that t}!e noise impact and possible
mitigation measures could affect the entire development .
Johnson believed that it was not appropriate for the
number of units to be limited by the Final Plat . He added
that financing was based on the Final Plat and, therefore,
the project could not move forward without Final Plat
• approval . The street projects could phase in with the
development proposals . Scenic Heights Road and Dell Road
needed to be petitioned for now. Johnson believed that
the number of units should be determined by occupancy.
Hallett believed that the plan was not ready for City
Council review at this time . Dodge concurred .
Anderson stated that he understood the proponent 's concern
about the road right-of-way with Tandem. He said that
properties could be split to obtain financing. Anderson
was concerned about the possible need for plan revisions
after the noise study was completed. Buxel replied that
the noise study would only affect 7 lots, with the main
concern being the elevation of the cul-de-sac . Franzen
replied that the number of lots affected could not be
determined until the noise study had been completed .
Buxel stated that if the plans changed significantly the
proponent would then have to come back for further review.
Ruebling stated that the noise study could require the
lots to have greater rear-lot setbacks . Johnson replied
that he believed that the mitigation could be accomplished
by raising the elevation of the berm. Buxel concurred
that the issues regarding the noise mitigation dealt with
• berming and elevations . Franzen stated that the maximum
slope allowed for a berm was 3-to-1 and that the
:statistical data was not available at this time to make a
determination on what would be required . Franzen believed
Planning Commission Minutes 4 August 14, 1989
that the worst case scenario would be that 6 lots would be
lost and yet the project would still maintain 3 cul-de-
sacs .
Ruebling asked how long it would be before the 2nd Reading
by the City Council as it relates to the timing of Highway
5 improvements . Franzen replied the Fall of 1990 .
Ruebling asked if anything would begin for another 12 to
18 months . Franzen replied that the Highway 5 and Dell
Road intersection needed to be improved before
construction could begin. Johnson's interpretation of the
Southwest Area Study was that turn lanes were necessary on
Highway 5, but the controlling factor was the installation
of the trunk watermain along Highway 5, which occur
concurrently with construction. Johnson added that he
would like to begin work in the spring of 1990 .
Hallett stated that he was pleased to see the proposed
park area in the southern portion of the parcel . Hallett
asked if a trail system would connect to the City trail
system. Buxel presented the plan for the trail system
connection. Hallett believed that it would be important
to require that the trail be marked immediately so that
potential buyers of the lots would know that a trail would
be adjacent to their lot . Hallett concurred that the tree
• replacement plan needed to be resolved, the sound testing
completed, the possibility of a shared driveway for the
two lots investigated, and phasing determined.
Dodge stated that Public Safety needed to review the
temporary access being recommended by the proponent .
Ruebling stated that the Phasing of the project needed to
be resolved because of the sewer connections .
Anderson asked if sidewalks had been considered on the
internal loop street. Johnson replied that the Parks,
Recreation & Natural Resources Commission had not
recommended sidewalks in this area.
Ruebling ,asked how long a continuance would be necessary
to resolve the issues noted by the Planning Commission.
Buxel replied that he believed 2 weeks would be adequate .
Franzen believed that in order to allow enough time for
Staff review of the new information and to resolve all the
issues prior to returning to the Planning Commission the
continuance should be scheduled for the September 11, 1989
Planning Commission meeting.
MOTION:
• Ruebling moved, seconded by Anderson to continue this item
to the September 11, 1989 Planning Commission meeting.
Motion carried 4-0-0 .
Planning Commission Minutes 5 August 14, 1989
• B. 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 Review on 129 . 8 acres, Planned Unit
Development District Review on 32. 2 acres with waivers,
Zoning District Change from Rural to RI-9 . 5 on 15 . 7 acres
and from Rural to R1-13 . 5 on 8 . 4 acres, Site Plan Review,
Preliminary Platting of 129 .8 acres into 76 single family
lots, 3 outlots, and road right-of-way, Environmental
Assessment Worksheet Review on 129 . 8 acres as part of a
450 acre phased action E.A.W. for construction of a
residential development. Location: North of Rice Marsh
Lake, just east of the Chanhassen-Eden Prairie city
limits . A continued public hearing.
Mike Black, representing the proponent, stated that the
new plan for the alignment of Dell Road supported the
expansion of the MUSA Line . Phase I of the project would
require sewer connections to be completed . Black believed
there would be a benefit to the City for the MUSA Line
expansion. The inclusion of this parcel would facilitate
the construction of Dell Road and the sewer line
connections . Black stated that the proponent was willing
to review the Phasing of the development. The project
• would consist of 31 acres to be developed as R1-9 . 5 and
98. 7 acres to be developed as R1-13. 5 lots . The density
would be 1 . 6 units per acre . 52 homes were proposed for
Phase I . Black said that the proponent would continue to
work with Staff on the proper road alignments . Black
noted that Rice Marsh Lake was classed as a natural
environmental area . The 18 lots on Rice Marsh Lake were
not considered lakeshore lots . The proponent was
proposing 150 foot setbacks and had planned for the
additional oversized house pads as recommended by Staff .
A public green space area would be provided along the
lakeshore, the lots would not directly abut the lakeshore .
Transition for the property to the north and Dell Road was
still being negotiated . The proponent was continuing
negotiations with Datasery regarding the construction of a
common berm and landscaping. The 170 foot minimum depth
for the lots to the north may not be able to be
accomplished per the Staff recommendation, but the
proponent was continuing to work on this item.
Don Patton, representing the proponent, stated that
Datasery was conducting a feasibility study for a proposed
expansion. The concern was that two berms would trap
water and cause drainage problems in the area. A low area
along Dell Road was making the berming difficult in this
area . Patton said that the architectural diversity would
• meet the Staff recommendations .
Uram reported that currently being proposed was a 16 acre
Planning Commission Minutes 6 August 14, 1989
• trade and a 16 acre expansion of the MUSA Line . The trade
would include land designated for the right-of-way of
Highway 212 and may or may not be considered developable
by the Metropolitan Council . Eden Prairie had a 7 year
overage of land to be developed and, therefore, the
Metropolitan Council might not consider the land trade and
expansion favorably. Uram noted that the proponent
controlled property in Subarea 1A and would transfer the
development rights to the parcel outside the MUSA Line .
Staff could continue to review the transition to Dell
Road, but some type of commitment from Datasery should be
obtained to substantiate the transition to the north.
Uram stated that because only Phase I was being platted at
this time shoreland variances would not be necessary at
this time, but would require review when the remainder of
the lots were platted.
Anderson asked Staff if they concurred that the MUSA Line
expansion would facilitate the construction of Dell Road
and the sewer connections . Uram replied that it would
facilitate the development of Dell Road; however, Dell
Road did not need to be extended at this time . The Dell
Road feasibility study had not been completed and there
was concern about the location of the curve on the
southeastern property line .
• Ruebling asked if the extension of Dell Road was only
needed to serve this development. Uram replied ye .
Ruebling then asked if the expansion was necessary for the
sewer line extension. Uram replied that Staff was not
concerned about a sewer line extension across undeveloped
property.
Feerick stated that US Homes did need the extension of
Dell Road and added that the proponent would accept the
alignment determined appropriate by the City's consultant .
Dick Nowlin, an attorney representing the proponent for
the MUSA Line expansion, presented a letter to the
Planning Commission outlining the analysis used for the
MUSA Line expansion. Nowlin believed that an expansion of
the MUSA Line was possible . The _land supply within the
MUSA Line was not being used up and, therefore, he said
that a land trade would require the support of the City.
Nowlin noted that the proponent would also have to have
land to trade . The justification for the MUSA Line
expansion was the additional assessments obtained to
construct Dell Road and the sewer line extension. Nowlin
did not believe that it would be possible to support more
than a 32 acre trade at this time .
. Nowlin explained to the Planning Commission other possible
ways to allocate the lots in this; ,area equitably.
Planning Commission Minutes 7 August 14, 1989
• Feerick stated that the proponent was ready to petition
for the Dell Road extension.
Anderson asked for clarification on Nowlin 's theory for
the allocation of lots for the area . Nowlin replied that
the number of allocated lots needed to be above 250, a
surplus should be maintained because full development of
the platted lots would take place over several years .
Feerick stated that Mr . Brauer had indicated there could
be 400 lots which could be platted .
Uram stated that 1200 lots were platted currently in Eden
Prairie which were not developed . The City needed to
determine a fair and equitable way to allocate the lots .
Uram added that a unit per acre limit had been considered.
Ruebling asked if this would be controlled through the
building permit or final plat process . Uram replied that
the finial plat method was a better method for the City to
maintain control . Nowlin believed that the number of lots,
allowed to be developed could be administered through a
better method .
Anderson believed that there was a significant question as
to whether the 16 acres along the right-of-way for Highway
• 212 would be permitted in a trade . Uram replied that the
City would not know until it made a proposal to the
Metropolitan Council . Nowlin added that the
recommendation would require support from the City.
Dodge stated that she would prefer a land trade to a 32
acre expansion. Dodge then asked what the disadvantages
would be to the City for an expansion. Anderson believed
a precedent would be set .
Ruebling stated that he did not have a problem with an
expansion, but questioned the probability of the
Metropolitan Council approving the expansion. Nowlin
replied that he believed that a trade and expansion
request could be accomplished without negative affects to
Eden Prairie .
Hallett asked where the acreage would come from to be
traded. Nowlin replied that the proponent had 3 possible
options from property owners . Hallett stated that he
would not support an expansion; however, he would consider
a land trade.
Dodge questioned if the Planning Commission needed to
forward only an approval of the request for a MUSA Line
amendment or if the entire plan needed to be approved.
Dodge stated that there were still several unanswered
questions regarding the plan. Ruebling asked if an
approval for Phase I was necessary for the proponent to
Planning Commission Minutes 8 August 14, 1989
. proceed to the Metropolitan Council . Feerick replied that
with a land trade he believed that the MUSA Line amendment
request was possible . Feerick added that the site plan
issues could be worked on while the MUSA Line amendment
request was being presented to the Metropolitan Council .
Uram believed that the project should be kept together as
a complete package and the issues regarding the plan
should be addressed .
Anderson asked Staff what they would need from the
proponent to proceed regarding the transition issues .
Uram replied the City would need a letter from Datasery or
the property owner which authorized the proponent to grade
on their property.
Hallett questioned Staff 's rationale for having the
proponent continue with further plan changes, without
approval or denial of the MUSA Line amendment by the
Metropolitan Council . Uram believed that a complete
package would be better received by the Metropolitan
Council . Franzen added that the justification provided by
the proponent to substantiate a MUSA Line amendment was to
facilitate the extension of Dell Road and the sewer line
connection, which could be illustrated with a completed
plan to show to the Metropolitan Council .
Black stated that a recommendation from the Planning
Commission would allow the proponent to proceed to the
City Council . Black requested consideration of some
leeway regarding the 75 unit limit for Phase I and
regarding recommendation No. 5, the proponent would expect
a credit for the park dedication.
Anderson stated that he would like to see the proponent
consider sidewalks on all roads . Anderson further
believed that the proponent was not ready to proceed to
the Council at this time . Black replied that the
proponent would like to proceed to the City Council while
continuing to work with Staff .
Ruebling asked the proponent if the transfer of
development rights as recommended by Staff was acceptable .
Black replied that the Southwest Area Study and Subarea 1
were somewhat general . Ruebling believed that the
Southwest Area Study only included areas within the MUSA
Line and that allocation would be on a unit per acre
basis . Feerick stated that the proponent would work with
Staff on the unit per acre basis. . Nowlin believed that a
decision .should be based on the whole Southwest Area Study
concept rather than just Subarea 1A.
iRuebling believed that the issue of R1-9 . 5 housing needed
to be addressed and if the proposal was using the R1-9 . 5
housing as intended by the City. Dodge believed that R1-
Planning Commission Minutes 9 August 14, 1989
• 9 . 5 lots needed to be justified as starter homes .
Feerick stated that the proponent believed in the project
and believed it would benefit the City.
Uram stated that there were still significant issues which
needed to be resolved.
Hallett asked when the Dell Road feasibility study would
be completed . Staff replied approximately 2 months.
Dodge stated that more information needed to be obtained
from Datasery and the sidewalk issues also needed to be
resolved.
Hallett recommended that a square foot limit be placed on
the footprints for a R1-9 . 5 lot . Franzen replied that the
City Code was restrictive on floor area ratios .
MnTTQN:
Ruebling moved, seconded by Anderson to continue this item
to the September 11, 1989 Planning Commission meeting.
Motion carried 4-0-0 .
• C. EDENPRAIRIE RETAIL _DEVELOPMENT (FESTIVAL CENTRE) , by Curt
Johnson Properties . Request for Planned Unit Development
Concept Amendment and Planned Unit Development District
Review on 16. 2 acres with waivers . Zoning District
Amendment within the C-Reg-Ser Zoning District on 16 . 2
acres and Site Plan Review on 16. 2 acres for development
of a 153, 756 square foot commercial retail and
entertainment complex . Location: East of Plaza Drive and
south of Valley View Road . A continued public hearing.
Ron Krank, representing the proponent, stated that the
main tenants currently proposed were a Chuck-E-Cheese
restaurant and a theater operation with 8 screens showing
second run movies . Krank outlined the negative aspects of
the previous facility and stressed the need for a strong
identification of the building, which would be created
visually with a dome roof and other visual aids from the
roof area . The entrance would be another key location for
the identification of the building with the structure of a
colonnade . The restaurant could possibly have outdoor
dining. The rooftop units would be properly screened.
Krank suggested that parking along the outside driveway
could provide some of the additional parking spaces needed
if necessary. The exact details for the signage had not
been completed; however, the proponent had discussed
possibilities with Staff .
• Hallett asked from what direction the marquee could be
seen. Krank replied the marquee would be seen from
Planning Commission Minutes 10 August 14, 1989
• Highway 494 and the frontage road system.
Anderson was concerned about two movie theaters being
advertised from Highway 494 .
Ruebling asked if the type of signs being considered would
require waivers . Franzen replied that all the signs would
require waivers . Ruebling then asked if it was Staff 's
recommendation to remove the sign from the colonnade .
Franzen responded yes because the 40 foot high sign
exceeded code and would set a precedent for other retail
centers. Krank believed that the ;sign at the colonnade
was essential . Krank added that because of the past
history of the site, he believed that the building needed
a name .
Anderson asked the proponent about possible other tenants, .
Mark Rooney replied that the theater had committed to the
site, Chuck-E-Cheese had issued a letter of intent, and
the other uses would depend on the parking requirements.
He believed that a proper tenant mix was essential .
Rooney stated that tenants with a 5000 square foot lease
space were being looked at and that a lot of small
boutique type tenants would not be desired . The proponent
desired cross-parking to be allowed because of the
different tenants and the peak hours of their businesses .
Rooney noted that there were constraints on the proponent
because of the existing building design.
Franzen reported that from an architectural and site plate
aspect the appearance of the facility would be improved.
Two waivers would be necessary for the number of parking
spaces and the floor area ratio . Staff was comfortable
with the 110 parking space waiver . Franzen added that the
parking waiver would be part of the PUD and was based on
the proposed uses . Additional review of the parking could
be required in the future based on the actual tenants and
the parking requirements . A waiver would be necessary to
transfer the signs from the entire building to the ;south
and east sides . The height of the lettering should not
exceed 36 inches and no signs would be allowed on the
north or west sides of the facility. No future pylon sign
would be allowed and no sign on the marquee .
Anderson asked for clarification on the request for no
sign on the marquee . Franzen replied that the marquee
would be considered a pylon sign. The marquee would need
to be 20 feet tall and a maximum of 80 square feet to meet
City code .
Krank recommended that the proponent come back to the
. Planning Commission with a more definite signage plan.
Hallett asked Staff if they were comfortable with the
Planning Commission Minutes 11 August 14, 1989
parking being proposed. Franzen replied yes.
Hallett asked what would prevent X-rated movies from being
shown. Rooney replied that X-rated movies were not
allowed by restrictions of the lease agreement . Hallett
then asked what protection the City would have if the
business were sold to someone else . Franzen replied that
he would need to check into this issue further.
Ruebling stated that he did not see a problem with the
colonnade saying Festival Centre; however, the colonnade
should not be filled in.
MOTION:
Anderson moved, seconded by Ruebling to continue this item
to the August 28, 1989 Planning Commission meeting and to
publish for the September 5, 1989 City Council meeting.
Motion carried 4-0-0 .
D. A••TO•_Z RENTAL AND EDEN PRAIRIE APPLIANCE, by Rome
Development. Request for Zoning District Amendment with
in the C-Reg-Ser Zoning District on 1 . 67 acres, Site Plan
Review on 1. 67 acres for construction of a 21,014 square
foot commercial facility. Location: South of Valley View
• Road, west of Plaza Drive . A public hearing.
Mark Johnson, representing the proponent, stated that the
proposal was to proceed with Phase II and III for outside
storage and a loading dock area. The outside storage area
would be enclosed . The access to the loading docks would
be from behind Menards and along the back of the building.
Landscaping would be added along the west side of the
building.
Ruebling asked why Staff had recommended that the parking
lot be lowered . Uram replied this would help to screen
the area. Uram added that there was a lack of green space
in the area . Johnson replied that because of existing gas
and water lines this recommendation would be difficult to
accomplish. Johnson presented drawings which demonstrated
the sight line distances and added that the proponent
would prefer to add additional landscaping in lieu of
lowering the parking lot . Uram stated that the purpose
for the recommendation was to screen the overhead doors
and the parking area was not screened to City Code .
Uram reported that Staff recommended approval of the
project based on the recommendations outlined in the Staff
Report .
•
Planning Commission Minutes 12 August 14, 1989
MOTTON I_ :
Hallett moved, seconded by Anderson to close the public
hearing. Motion carried 4-0-0 .
MOTION 2 •
Hallett moved, seconded by Anderson to recommend to the
City Council approval of the request of A to Z Rental for
Zoning District Amendment within the C-Reg-Ber District on
1. 67 acres, and Site Plan Approval for construction of a
21, 014 sq. ft. structure to be known as A to Z Rental and
Eden Prairie Appliance, .based on plan✓ dated August 2,
1989, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report
dated August 11, 1989, to include the recommendation of
the Planning Commission to lower the elevation of the
parking lot 2 feet if possible based on the elevations of
the water and gas line.. Motion carried 4-0-0 .
E. CARDINAL CREEK 3RD ADDITTON, by GAC Partners . Request for
a Zoning District Change from R1-13 . 5 to RM-6 . 5 on 1 .21
acres for development of three twinhome lots . Location:
Stonewood Court . A public hearing.
Franzen reported that Staff recommended approval of the
project based on the recommendations outlined in the Staff
Report .
MOTTON:
Hallett moved, seconded by Ruebling to recommend to the
City Council approval of the request of GAC Partners for
Zoning District Change from R1-13. 5 to RM-6 . 5 on 1 . 21
acres within the Cardinal Creek 3rd Addition, based on
plans dated July 18, 1989,- subject to the recommendations
of the Staff Report dated August 11, 1989 . Motion carried
4-0-0.
V. OLD BUSINESS
VI . NEW BUSINESS
VII . PLANNER 'S REPORT
VIII . ADJOURNMENT
MOTION•
Anderson moved, seconded by Hallett to adjourn the meeting at
11 : 30 PM. Motion carried 4-0-0 .