Planning Commission - 08/28/1989 AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, August 28, 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. June 12, 1989
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
*NOTE: THE TIMES LISTED BELOW ARE TENTATIVE, AND MAY BE SIGNIFICANTLY EARLIER, OR LATER
THAN LISTED.
. (7:35) A. 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.
(8:15) B. BURNETT ADDITION, by Transtar. Request for Preliminary Plat of 4.57 acres
into 9 single family lots. Location: 9940 Bennett Place. A public
hearing.
(8:45) C. NELSON ADDITION. by David Nelson. Request for Zoning District Change and
Preliminary Plat on 2.41 acres into 6 single family lots. Location: 9950
Bennett Place. A public hearing.
(9:15) D. BLUFFS WEST 8TH, by Hustad Development. Request for Zoning District
Change from R1-22 to R1-13.5 on 2.12 acres and Preliminary Plat of 2.12
acres into four single family lots, with variances to be reviewed by the
Board of Appeals. Location: North of Bluestem Road & access off Bennett
Place. A public hearing.
V. OLD BUSINESS
VI. NEW BUSINESS
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
• PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVED MINUTES
MONDAY, AUGUST 28, 1989 7 : 30 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7600 Executive Drive
COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Julianne Bye, Richard
Anderson, Robert Hallett, Charles
Ruebling, Doug Sandstad
COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Christine Dodge, Doug Fell
STAFF MEMBERS : Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Scott
Kipp, Planner; Deb Edlund, Recording
Secretary
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
I . APPROVAL OF AGENDA,
MOTION•
Hallett moved, seconded by Sandstad .to approve the Agenda as
published . Motion carried 5-0-0 .
II . MEMBERS REPORTS
III . MINUTES
MOTION•
Ruebling moved, seconded by Anderson to approve the Minutes of
the June 12, 1989 Planning Commission meeting as published .
Motion carried 5-0-0 .
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. 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.
Scott Kipp reported that the proponent had returned to the
Planning Commission to address the signage proposal for
the site . A preliminary image sketch with the proposed
• signage was presented to the Planning Commission.
Ron Krank, representing the proponent, stated that a 4
foot signage band area was being proposed for the south
Planning Commission Minutes 2 August 28, 1989
• and east sides of the building with 36 inch letters.
Kipp stated that the previous sign plan has been revised
to remove any and all signage from the 40 foot marquee .
The revised plan provides for a sign band to run along the
face of the colonnade at the same height as the building's
signage band area.
Kipp reported that Staff recommended approval of the
project with the addition that a restrictive covenant be
implemented to limit the location of signage to the south
and east building elevations only.
Sandstad asked for clarification on the restrictive
covenant. Kipp replied that a covenant had been written
for the Factory outlet Center to limit the amount of
signage for the site because of a trade-off for the 58
foot pylon sign along the I-494 frontage and to protect
the City of the addition of any more future pylon signs .
Sandstad then asked if there would be any restriction
placed on the sign design or color scheme . Kipp replied
that the sign criteria would be reviewed by Staff . Krank
stated that the signs would be consistent with City code
using individual internally lit letters .
• MOTION 1 :
Ruebling moved, seconded by Sandstad to close the public
hearing. Motion carried 4-0-0 .
MOTION 2 •
Ruebling moved, seconded by Sandstad to recommend to the
City Council approval of the request of Curt Johnson
Properties for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment
for a 153,756 square foot commercial, retail, and
entertainment complex to be know as the Festival Centre,
based on revised plans dated August 11, 1989, subject to
the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated July 7,
August 11, August 24, and August 25, 1989 . Motion carried
4-0-0 .
MOTION 3•
Ruebling moved, seconded by Sandstad to recommend to the
City Council approval of the request of Curt Johnson
Properties for Planned Unit Development District Review on
16 . 2 acres, with waivers, and Zoning District Amendment
within the C-Reg-Ser Zoning District for development of a
153, 756 square foot commercial, retail, and entertainment
complex to be known as Festival Centre, based on revised
• plans dated August 11, 1989, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Reports dated July 7, August
11, August 24, and August 25, 1989 . Motion carried 4-0-0 .
Planning commission Minutes 3 August 28, 1989
MOTION 4 •
Ruebling moved, seconded by Sandstad to recommend to the
City Council approval of the request of Curt Johnson
Properties for Site Plan Review on 16 . 2 acres for
development of a 153,756 square foot commercial, retail
and entertainment complex to be known as the Festival
Centre, based on revised plans dated August 11, 1989,
subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated
July 7, August 11, August 24, and August 25, 1989 . Motion
carried 4-0-0 .
B. BURNETT ADDITION, by Transtar. Request for Preliminary
Plat of 4 . 57 acres into 9 single family lots . Location:
9940 Bennett Place .
Peter Knable, representing the proponent, presented the
plan for a 9 lot subdivision on 4 . 57 acres which complied
with all City Codes and Ordinances . Although the Staff
Report recommended a private drive for two lots in lieu of
a future cul-de-sac, the developer would prefer the
original plan. Knable noted that the road as currently
proposed would provide for the center of the road to be
directly across from a 3 car garage . The proponent was
concerned that by moving the road to the north five
• significant oak trees would be lost, which would be
approximately an additional 95 caliper inches . Also by
moving the road to the north the corner lot would require
a variance . The original plan by the proponent had been
for 2 cul-de-sacs and no through street connection to
Purgatory Road. Knable stated that a neighborhood meeting
had just been held earlier this evening.
Anderson asked if the setback and lot size could be met on
the corner lot . Franzen replied that a standard setback
and lot size could be met by reconfiguring lot lines .
Franzen reported that Staff was concerned about piece meal
development in this area. Staff had made roadway
recommendations based on City Council policy that the use
of cul-de-sacs should be minimized . The through street
would provide for additional routes for emergency
vehicles . Franzen stated that a significant amount of
fill would be required on this parcel if the cul-de-sac
from the Hustad property was extended to serve the back
lots . The overall road plan as prepared by Ron Kruger 's
office in 1988 depicted this back area as being served by
a cul-de-sac, however, a grading plan and tree inventory
was not available at the time . After reviewing the
grading necessary to extend the cul-de-sac and resultant
50% tree loss, it made more sense to create flag lot
access by driveway. Sight distance was taken into careful
consideration regarding the access paint on Bennett Place .
Residents were concerned about headlights shining into the
Planning Commission Minutes 4 August 28, 1989
. homes of the neighbors directly across from the entrance
road. Franzen noted that the road could be moved only 20
feet to the north and a variance would not be required on
the corner lot. A 4 foot retaining wall was currently
proposed to save the trees and the realignment of the road
would not change this. Franzen stated that Staff was
recommending approval of the project with the realignment
of the roadway to the north with flag lots, and that the
project adhere to the Tree Replacement Policy. The
construction of an east/west trail system is along the
street extension. Variances would be required on the flag
lots as they would lack frontage on a city street.
Patrick Finnegan, 9925 Bennett Place, stated that he owned
the home directly across from the access point and was
concerned about the headlights shining in his home and was
also concerned for the safety of the children in the
neighborhood with the increase from the roadway being
extended. Finnegan said that it was human nature to speed
to get up the steep hill and, therefore, the speed on
Bennett Place was too fast. He and other neighbors had
talked with the police department to try to slow down the
traffic. Finnegan stated that he would prefer to see a a-
way stop sign at the intersection. He encouraged the
proponent to adhere to Staff 's recommendation to move the
• road at least 20 feet to the north and would prefer that
it be moved 30 to 35 feet if possible.
Bye commented that the Planning Commission could not have
a stop sign placed at the intersection, but could request
that other City bodies look into the issue .
Randy Stoneman, 9947 Bennett Place, agreed that the road
should be moved 20 feet to the north. He believed that it
made good planning sense to keep the access road away from
the Finnegan driveway. Stoneman asked if it was difficult
to massage lot lines because it seemed that the proponent
was opposed to seeking a variance on the corner lot .
,lane Kelly, 9900 Windsor Terrace, stated there was
constant traffic on Bennett Place and the traffic was
moving too fast. Kelly was concerned that someone was
going to get seriously injured.
Susan Boutin, 11407 Creekridge, concurred with the other
neighbors about the potential increase in traffic and the
current speed of the traffic; however, she was also
concerned about the about the tree loss in the flag lot
areas and about having a substandard home built on the
corner lot if thy.• size of the lot was reduced .
• Tom Ganbucci believed that the headlight issue could be
resolved with a height elevation of the road being
adjusted . Ganbucci also believed that it would be in the
Planning Commission Minutes 5 AugUSt 28, 1`89
city's best interest to have public streets throughout the
subdivision rather than flag lots . He said that if the
road was moved in any direction either another tree would
be lost or the headlights would shine in someone 's
windows . Ganbucci stated that he would be willing to
construct a barrier of some type or provide landscaping to
mitigate the headlight issue . The road was at 80 grade
and he did not believe should really be an issue.
Ganbucci stated that he could not solve everyone 's
problems and added that the road access point as presently
proposed would be directly across from a three-car garage.
Ganbucci did not believe that this proposal was creating
any safety issues for the neighborhood. Ganbucci stated
that the tree loss would be intensified with the use of
the flag lots and was concerned about the two lots being
missed by emergency vehicles .
Bob Anderson, 11263 Creekridge Drive, stated that the
traffic on Bennett Place was currently significant and
that speed of the traffic was a safety issue . He believed
that it was a good idea to consider a 3-way stop sign.
Anderson noted that the Cardarelle development was at a
significantly higher grade.
Don Schober stated that it was not possible for the cars
• coming from either direction to see one another when
coming up the hill because of the angle of the road . He
believed there would be a serious accident one day.
Franzen stated that sight distances were based on a 30
mile per hour speed. Franzen added that Staff had
measured site distance on Bennett Place in the field to
verify that site distance criteria was met.
Ruebling asked if the sight distances were measured from
where a car would normally stop at the stop sign. Franzen
replied yes .
Ruebling asked if the retaining walls had to be moved if
more trees would be saved. Knable replied that the trees
were set 25 feet from the retaining walls. He added that
the 18 and 19 inch oaks would be lost and in addition
another 18 inch and a 28 inch oak would be lost on the lot
to the north if the road were moved because of the house
pads . Franzen noted that all of the trees would have been
lost due to site grading for the homes not because of the
road shift .
Hallett asked if a variance would be required on the
corner lot if the road were moved or if the lot lines
• could be adjusted . Franzen replied that a variance would
not be required on the corner lot if the road were only
moved 10 feet to the north. If the road is shifted 20
feet, a variance would not be needed if the west lot line
Planning Commission Minutes 6 August 28, 1989
• is moved 10 feet to the west, so the lot size would be the
same . Hallett believed that the road realignment would
help the resident directly across from the access point .
Hallett added that the request for a stop sign or
enforcement of the ,speed limits was a public safety issue.
Hallett stated that he supported that Staff
recommendations .
Anderson concurred with the residents that the traffic was
fast on Bennett Place . He noted that the City did not
support speed bumps or Children-at-Play signs. Anderson
stated that he would be opposed to a stop sign at the top
of the hill because of problems with traffic in the
winter .
Sandstad stated that he would like to see the Staff
recommendations upheld . He was also concerned about the
addition traffic and recommended contacting the police
department to enforce the speed in this area.
Ruebling asked what had been the rationale for not using
the second cul-de-sac on the Nelson site . Ruebling stated
that there may be a benefit to the cul-de-sacs in this
case . Franzen replied that a number of issues had been
taken in to consideration when looking at the road system;
• grading, tree loss, traffic patterns, and emergency
vehicle access as reasons for the through street from
Bennett to Purgatory Road. No significant trees would be
lost or extensive grading required . The through road
helps distribute traffic better in the area and provides
better emergency vehicle access. Franzen added that 1
flag lot with 1 building pad provides more of a buffer and
saves more trees . He noted that the corner lot could be
removed and the road moved to the north 100 feet to meet a
35 MPH site distance criteria.
Knable asked if the tree loss calculation was based on the
plan being proposed. Franzen replied that the 30%
calculation was based on 2 flag lots . Knable then asked
Franzen if the calculation had taken into consideration
the additional tree loss which would occur if the road was
moved 20 feet to the north. Franzen replied this had been
taken into consideration . Franzen added that if the cul-
de-sac was extended from the south through the Hustad land
to the back lots tree loss would be about 50%.
Anderson believed that this was too much development for
.such a small space, taking into consideration the trees,
safety, and access issues .
Wallace Hustad, stated that he would be opposed to the
• cul-de-sac because he would lose one lot due to the grades
in the area and that the through street provided better
access to his land .
Planning Commission Minutes 7 August 28, :1989
• Bye stated that the Planning Commission needed to look at
the whole road system and what was best for everyone . Bye
added that she supported the Staff recommendation because
she believed that Staff had taken into consideration what
was in the best interest of Eden Prairie .
MOTION 1•
Hallett moved, seconded by Anderson to close the public
hearing. Motion carried 5-0-0 .
MOTION 2•
Hallett moved, seconded by Sandstad to recommend to the
City Council approval of the request of Transtar for
Preliminary Plat of 4 .57 acres into nine (9 ) single family
lots to be known as the Burnett Addition, based on plans
dated August 14, 1989, subject to the Staff Report dated
August 25, 1989 with the following recommendations from
the Planning Commission: 1) Further review be given to
determine if Lot 1, Block 1, would need a variance, and 2)
Review any signage necessary to control the speed of the
traffic.
Anderson believed that Staff 's proposal would reduce the
• tree loss .
Motion carried 5-0-0 .
C. NELSON ADDITION, by David Nelson. Request for Zoning
District Change and Preliminary Plat on 2 . 41 acres into 6
single family lots . Location: 9950 Bennett Place .
Peter Rnable, representing the proponent, stated that the
plan was for the development of 6 lots on 2 .5 acres with a
zoning change from R1-22 to R1-13 . 5. He added that these
were standard lots and variances would not be required .
Franzen reported that Staff recommended approval of the
project based on the Staff Report dated August 25, 1989 .
MOTION 1•
Hallett moved, seconded by Ruebling to close the public
hearing . Motion carried 5-0-0 .
MOTION 2•
Hallett moved, seconded by Ruebling to recommend to the
City Council ,approval of the request of David Nelson for
• Zoning District Change from R1-22 to R1-13 . 5 on 2 . 41
acres, to be known as the Nelson Addition, based on plans
Planning Commission Minutes 8 August 28, 1989
dated August 25, 1989, subject to the recommendations of
the Staff Report dated August 25, 1989 . Motion carried 5-
0-0 .
MOTION 3•
Hallett moved, seconded by Ruebling to recommend to the
City Council approval of the request of David Nelson for
Preliminary Plat of 2 . 41 acres into six (6) single family
lots, to be known as the Nelson Addition, based on plans
dated August 25, 1989, subject to the recommendations of
the Staff Report dated August 25, 1989 . Motion carried 5-
0-0 .
D. BLUFFS WEST 8TH, by Hustad Development. Request for
zoning District Change from R1-22 to R1-13. 5 on 2 .12 acres
and Preliminary Plat of 2 .12 acres into four single family
lots, with variances to be reviewed by the Board of
Appeals. Location: North of Bluestem Road & access off
Bennett Place .
Wallace Hustad stated that it had been determined that two
flag lots would provide the best solution to allow access
to the Brown Land Company and the Nelson properties .
Franzen reported that three different property owners were
involved with 'the development in this neighborhood. Staff
had wanted to be consistent with Council direction for
flag lots when the Bluffs West 7th Addition was reviewed.
The purpose of these lots was to maintain the natural
features of the area. Staff recommended approval of the
project based on the recommendations outlined in the Staff
Report dated August 25, 1989 . Franzen added that Staff
was concerned about the drainage in the low area of the
development and was, therefore, requesting that the
proponent to provide a watershed study prior to City
Council Review.
Donald Schober was concerned about maintaining the
aesthetics of the property. Schober asked if there would
be an access road for this project . Franzen replied there
would be driveway access for each of the lots . Schober
then stated that each of the three projects provided
another access from Bennett Place and was concerned about
the additional traffic. Schober also believed that the
water problem was more than what it was being made out to
be . He added the property was very sandy and stated that
he would like to see the results of the watershed study.
Susan Boutin, 11407 Creekridge, asked what a flag lot was.
Franzen replied that it was a lot which did not meet the
minimum street frontage requirement per City Code .
Randy Stoneman, 9947 Bennett Place, concurred with Mr.
Planning commission Minutes 9 August 28, 1989
Schober that there would be too many access points from
Bennett Place and was also concerned about the 10d grade
on Bennett Place .
Peter Knable stated that the triangular area would need to
be platted and would request that utilities be extended
for storm sewer . Franzen replied that these items were
part of the overall plan for the area.
Franzen stated that further study of the elevation of the
piping needed to be completed. The proponent needs to
show where the water will go and the projected amount of
run-off . The size of the low area and the soil conditions
also needed to be taken into consideration. Franzen noted
that the proponent was required to provide erosion control
fences and hay bales . The construction limits would be
staked . Franzen concurred with Mr. Schober that the area
would look very different because of the number of trees
in the area. The tree loss was estimated at 336. Franzen
stated that Bennett Place could have been designed at a
lesser grade but more tree loss would have occurred due to
grading on each side of the road . The Engineering
Department had designed the road based on a 30 MPH speed.
MOTION 1.
• Anderson moved, seconded by Sandstad to close the public
hearing. Motion carried 5-0-0 .
MOTION 2•
Anderson moved, seconded by Sandstad to recommend to the
City Council approval of the request of Hustad Development
for Zoning District Change from R1-22 to R1-13 . 5 on 2 .12
acres, to be known as Bluffs West 8th Addition, based on
plans dated August 25, 1989, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated August 25, 1989 .
Motion carried 5-0-0.
MOTION 3:
Anderson moved, seconded by Sandstad to recommend to the
City Council approval of the request of Hustad Development
for Preliminary Plat of 2. 12 acres into four (4 ) single
family lots, to be known as Bluffs West 8th Addition,
based on plans dated August 25, 1989, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated August 25, 1989 .
Motion carried 5-0-0 .
V. OLD-BUSINESS
VI . NEW BUSINESS
VII . PLANNER ' S REPORT
Planning Commission Minutes 10 August 28, 1989
VIII . ADJOURNMENT
MOTION•
Ruebling moved, seconded by Hallett to adjourn the meeting at
9 : 55 PM. Motion carried unanimously.
•