Loading...
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 .