Planning Commission - 11/13/1989 AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, November 13, 1989
7:30 p.m.
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairperson Julianne Bye, Richard
Anderson, Tim Bauer, Christine Dodge,
Robert Hallett, Charles Ruebling, Doug
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. JAMESTOWN PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, by Tandem
Properties. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan
Amendment from Low Density Residential to
Neighborhood Commercial on 5.59 acres and from Low
Density Residential to Medium Density Residential
on 12. 16 acres, Planned Unit Development concept
Review on 60.79 acres, Planned Unit Development
District Review on 60.79 acres with waivers, Site
Plan review and Zoning District Change from Rural
to R1-13.5 on 37.65 acres, Preliminary Plat of 60.79
acres into 17 townhouse lots, 60 single family lots,
2 outlots and road right-of-way, Environmental
Assessment Worksheet Review on 60.79 acres for a
mixed use development to be known as Jamestown.
Location: Southeast quadrant of 184th Avenue and
Dell Road. A continued public hearing.
8:40 B. ALPINE CENTER, by Lariat Companies. Request for
Planned Unit Development District Review on
approximately 18 acres. Zoning District Change from
Rural to C-Reg-Ser and Site Plan Review on 3.56
acres for construction of a 29,700 square foot
retail center. Location: Northeast corner of
Prairie Center Drive and Commonwealth Drive. A
1
continued public hearing.
8:45 C. EDEN PLACE CENTER, by Prairie Entertainment
Associates. Request for Planned Unit Development
Concept Amendment on 15.2 acres, Planned Unit
Development District Review on 15.2 acres with
waivers, and Zoning District Amendment within the
C-Reg-Ser Zoning District on 6.42 acres, Preliminary
Plat of 6.42 acres into two lots, and Site Plan
Review on 6.42 acres for construction of a 25,742
square foot building addition to the commercial
site. Location: West of Glen Lane, south and east
of Eden Road. A continued public hearing.
9:15 D. FARBER ADDITION, by Roger Farber. Request for
Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 3.7
acres with variances for road frontage to be
reviewed by the Board of Appeals. Preliminary Plat
of 7.6 acres into 3 single family lots, and one
outlot. Location: 6525 Rowland Road. A public
hearing.
9:45 E. SUPERAMERICA CAR WASH, by Crosstown Investors.
Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to N-
Com on .05 acres, Zoning District Amendment and Site
Plan Review within the N-Com Zoning District on 1.2
• acres, Preliminary Plat of 6.2 acres into one lot
and one outlot for construction of a car wash
addition to the SuperAmerica station. Location:
North of City West Parkway, west of Shady Oak Road.
A public hearing.
V. OLD BUSINESS
VI. NEW BUSINESS
VII. PLANNERIS REPORT
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
2
PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVED MINUTES
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1989 7: 30 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7600 Executive Drive
COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chairperson Christine Dodge,
Tim Bauer, Robert Hallett, Charles
Ruebling, Doug Sandstad
COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Julianne Bye, Richard Anderson
STAFF MEMBERS : Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Scott
Kipp, Planner; Deb Edlund, Recording
Secretary
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
I . APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION•
Ruebling moved, seconded by Bauer to approve the Agenda as
published. Motion carried 4-0-0.
II . MEMBERS REPORTS
III . MINUTES
1. Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting held September
25, 1989
MOTION•
Bauer moved, seconded by Sandstad to approve the Minutes
of the September 25, 1989 Planning Commission meeting as
published. Motion carried 3-0-1. Ruebling abstained.
2 . Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting held October
23 , 1989
MOTION:
Ruebling moved, seconded by Bauer to approve the Minutes
of the October 23, 1989 Planning Commission meeting as
published. Motion carried 4-0-0 .
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. JAMESTOWN PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, by Tandem Properties.
Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low
• Density Residential to Neighborhood Commercial on 5 . 59
acres and from Low Density Residential to Medium Density
Residential on 12.16 acres, Planned Unit Development
Planning Commission Minutes 2 November 13, 1989
Concept on 60 . 79 acres, Planned Unit Development District
Review on 60 . 79 acres with waivers, Site Plan Review and
Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13 . 5 on 37 . 65
acres, Preliminary Plat of 60. 79 acres into 17 townhouse
lots, 60 single family lots, 2 outlots, and road right-of-
way, Environmental Assessment Worksheet Review on 60 . 79
acres for a mixed use development. Location: Southeast
quadrant of 184th Avenue and Dell Road . A continued
public hearing.
Jim Ostenson, representing the proponent, presented plans
for a small commercial center, which he believed would be
appropriate to serve this portion of the community, a
daycare center, a convenience gas station, medium density
manor homes, and 60 single-family homes . The commercial
center location was determined to help save more trees in
this section which was the most wooded section of the
parcel . The manor homes would consist of 4 to 8 units
with one garage per unit. The density would be 9 units
per acre for the manor homes, which would be adjacent to
the single-family homes . The single-family R1-13. 5 lots
would be located to the south. Ostenson stated that the
development would begin with the single-family homes .
Ostenson noted that several issues were raised by Staff
regarding the project.
• Franzen reported that the Planning Commission needed to
consider the following items when considering approval of
the plan:
1. Is this an appropriate area for commercial and
multi-family development?
2. Has the proponent substantiate the request for a
Comprehensive Guide Plan Change?
3. What would the impact be on the surrounding land
uses?
4. Had an appropriate transition been provided?
Franzen believed that a better transition could be made to
the east and the south of proposed Street A. He added
that because of the significant grade difference berming
could not be used to help with the transition, the
proponent would need to rely entirely on plant material .
Franzen reported that the amount of traffic generated by
the proposed development was higher than the Southwest
Area Plan. Franzen believed that traffic could become a
problem based on the cumulative total for all of the
development in this area. Franzen did not anticipate any
problems related to meeting PCA restrictions for noise
abatement. Franzen believed that the tree loss could be
improved with minor modification in the present plan. He
noted that the tree loss was higher because the trees were
grouped together.
Planning Commission Minutes 3 November 13, 1989
• Franzen stated that the City Council had placed a limit of
10 building permits to be granted for each development and
no occupancy permits would be granted until the Dell Road
intersection had been improved. Franzen noted that Staff
was concerned about the number of garages from the manor
homes facing proposed Street A. Franzen reviewed the
alternatives outlined in the November 9, 1989 Staff
Report.
Bauer asked Ostenson what the compelling reasons were for
the request for a Comprehensive Guide Plan Change .
Ostenson replied that a commercial development to provide
service to the neighborhoods in the Southwest Area were
needed and appropriate. The commercial center would serve
the area south of County Road 5 and Dell Road to the
north. Ostenson added that all the other corners of the
intersection were of a commercial nature . Ostenson did
not believe that it would be appropriate for single-family
homes to be proposed adjacent to County Road 5 and,
therefore, the multi-family units were proposed. Ostenson
added that the multi-family units would meet a need in
Eden Prairie for less expensive housing to accommodate the
young families and singles . The manor homes would be
priced in the $70,000 to 80,000 range . Ostenson noted
that the multi-family units would only increase the
traffic generated by 120 daily trips, which he believed
• would not be noticeable in this area. Bauer clarified the
rationale for the Comprehensive Guide Plan as being a need
for neighborhood commercial development in this area and
the need for lower priced housing in Eden Prairie.
Dick Putnam, representing the proponent, stated that the
original plan consisted of 150 single-family homes . He
added that Staff had recommended the pursuit of alternate
uses because of the intersection of Dell Road and County
Road 5 and the amount of traffic on County Road 5. The
congestion and noise on County Road 5 would make if
difficult to market low density, single-family homes . The
commercial center was developed to save trees . Putnam
believed that the actual tree loss would be approximately
20% to 25%, not the 40% predicted by Staff . The office,
daycare and the woods themselves would be the transition
provided to the multi-family homes . Putnam acknowledged
that transition to the single-family homes to the east
would be difficult and needed further work. Putnam did
not believe that an industrial use would provide any
benefits to the City or to the neighboring residents .
Franzen indicated that Staff did not suggest uses other
than low denisty residential for the site, but when asked
if commercial or multiple would be appropriate, Staff
replied that a small amount of commercial and multiple may
• be appropriate .
Ruebling asked how the 28, 500 square foot commercial
Planning Commission Minutes 4 November 13, 1989
center compared to other commercial developments in Eden
Prairie. Franzen replied that the commercial developments
in Eden Prairie ranged in size from 8,000 square feet to
33,000 square feet, the size depended on size of service
area. Ruebling then asked if the square footage of the
commercial center could be scaled down. Ostenson replied
that 10,000 square feet would be the office building and
18,000 square feet for the convenience store. Ostenson
added that the commercial center should not create any
additional traffic problem for the area. Ruebling asked
the size of the daycare center . Ostenson replied 5,800
square feet. He added that 12, 500 square feet of the
commercial center would be designated for retail sales
only.
Putnam stated that there would be more than enough space
to serve the commercial uses and in fact could be
developed on approximately 1/2 the acreage . Putnam
believed that the site was unique . He stated that
marketing surveys had reinforced the appropriateness of
the proposed land uses .
Bauer asked the proponent to address the issues of tree
loss, transition, and the intensity of use for the multi-
family development. Ostenson replied that he had not
received the Staff report until Friday and would like to
• have time to work with Staff further on these issues.
Franzen indicated that the proponent had been informed of
these issues long before the Staff Report was written, and
was given an opportunity to revise plans before the final
report was prepared.
Sandstad asked how the proponent would propose to reduce
the intensity of the multi-family area . Ostenson replied
that if too many units were removed than the costs to
develop the units would no longer fall into the lower
priced housing needed in Eden Prairie. Ostenson did not
believe that density was a problem for the interior
section of the multi-family development. He added that
the problem was with the transition to the Orin Thompson
homes, which were 8 to 10 feet higher than the proposed
multi-family homes . Ostenson stated that because of the
significant differences in grade, he did not see how these
homes could be screened entirely from the Orin Thompson
development, the only way to soften the effect would
possibly be to develop these 4 units adjacent to the
single family with less square footage per unit. Ostenson
further believed that the single-family homes would be
more imposing than the two-story multiple homes . Ostenson
noted that County Road 5 would be lowered 7 feet and,
therefore, the multi-family homes would not be visible
. from County Road 5 . The proposed street and berming would
provide the transition to the single-family units to the
south. Sandstad stated that he would like to see a plan
Planning Commission Minutes 5 November 13, 1989
with more single-family units . Ostenson noted that
because of setback requirements there would be
approximately 125 feet between the single-family homes and
the multi-family homes .
Ruebling asked what the square footage of the footprints
was for the 4 units adjacent to the single-family homes.
Putnam replied 3, 800 square feet. Ruebling asked if there
would be any way to mask the massive appearance of the
units . Ruebling stated that he was comfortable with the
request for the Comprehensive Guide Plan relative to the
commercial development; however, he would like the
proponent to work further with Staff on the transitions to
the single-family units and to reduce the number of
driveways exiting onto the proposed east/west collector
road.
Franzen asked the Planning Commission to clarify the
changes in the plan it would like to see . Ruebling
replied that he would like to see a reduction in the
density for the multi-family and an appropriate transition
made to the single-family. He added that the number of
driveways exiting onto the frontage road should be
reduced. Ruebling asked Staff to address any possible
problems which could arise if the private street would
become a public street. Ruebling further recommended that
Item B be removed from Alternate II in the Staff report.
Hallett arrived.
Putnam stated that a reduction in the number of homes in
the multi-family section would increase the price and
would not work well for this type of building. He added
that there was a quad unit which could be developed at 5
units per acre . Putnam stated that the proponent would
work with Staff on the transition issue.
Franzen stated that Staff believed that 6 units per acre
would reduce the number of driveways exiting onto the
collector street and would help with the transition.
Franzen added that if all the issues were resolved he
would be comfortable with the density as proposed.
Franzen noted that it was difficult for Staff to equate
the impact on the reduction in number of units to the
price range of the homes . He said that manor homes in
Eden Prairie were constructed at various price levels and
had been developed with comparable densities .
Ruebling stated that the major issue was the transition to
the east.
Bauer stated that one of the reasons given by the
proponent for the request for a Comprehensive Guide Plan
change had been to provide lower priced housing in Eden
Planning Commission Minutes 6 November 13, 1989
Prairie and added that if this were not the case it could
affect his decision on whether or not a Comprehensive
Guide Plan change was appropriate . Ostenson replied that
lower priced housing meant higher density and more
traffic. Ostenson added that the City needed to determine
if it was willing to make the trade-offs necessary to
provide the lower priced housing in Eden Prairie .
Dodge stated that the price could also be controlled by
the number of extras provided.
Putnam questioned Orin Thompson's decision to provide
single-family homes along County Road 5 and added that the
proponent needed more detail from Orin Thompson on what it
was actually proposing and the actual grades . Putnam
noted that one of the problems in changing its plan was
that the road connections had to be made with Orin
Thompson's plan.
Sandstad believed that the number of units in the medium
density area needed to be reduced.
Bauer recommended that the proponent consider a play area
for the children. Putnam replied that the proponent had
proposed to the City to dedicate a 6 acre neighborhood
park; however, the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources
department had plans for another site and preferred the
payment of Cash Park Fees instead of the dedication of the
park . Putnam believed that this location would have been
a good park site for the Orin Thompson development as well
as the proposed development.
Ruebling recommended that the proponent consider the
construction of smaller units for lots 1 through 4 .
MOTION•
Ruebling moved, seconded by Sandstad to continue the
public hearing to the December 11, 1989 Planning
Commission meeting, returning the plans to the proponent
for revisions per the Staff Report dated November 9, 1989,
(and additional ) revisions from Commissioners from this
.meeting, with the elimination of Item B from Alternative
II .
B. ALPINE CENTER, by Lariat Companies . Request for Planned
Unit Development District Review on approximately 18
acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Reg-Ser and
Site Plan Review on 3 .56 acres for construction of a
29,700 square foot retail center. Location: Northeast
corner of Prairie Center Drive and Commonwealth Drive. A
continued public hearing.
MOTION•
Planning Commission Minutes 7 November 13, 1989
• Ruebling moved, seconded by Bauer to continue the public
hearing for Alpine Center to the November 27, 1989,
Planning Commission meeting to allow proponent additional
time to evaluate the traffic study results for the
proposal . Motion carried 5-0-0 .
C. EDEN PLACE CENTER, by Prairie Entertainment Associates .
Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on
15. 2 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on
15.2 acres with waivers, and Zoning District Amendment
within the C-Reg-Ser Zoning District on 6. 42 acres,
Preliminary Plat of 6. 42 acres for construction of a
25,742 square foot building addition to the commercial
site. Location: West of Glen Lane, south and east of
Eden Road. A continued public hearing.
Norm Brody, representing the proponent, stated that after
the negotiating the lease with Ciatti 's in 1988, the
search for a second anchor tenant had been unsuccessful
until Franks Nursery approached the proponent. Franks
Nursery is a national retailer with over 260 stores
throughout the country. Brody believed that Franks
Nursery would fill a void in the major center area for
this type of retail development. Brody stated that with
Franks as the second anchor the project could not be
completed.
• Paul Struthers, representing the proponent, stated that
three major issues were taken into consideration when
preparing the plans:
1. The site was visible on three sides.
2. The need to respond to the presence of Ciatti 's.
3 . The need to provide adequate space for Franks
Nursery to be able to successfully operate its
business.
Struthers stated that the cut for the berm would be filled
in and trees planted to provide screening. The building
would be placed on the corner and would act as a screen.
A link would be provided between Ciatti 's and Franks
Nursery via a walkway. The berm would screen the daily
activities. The trash areas for both Ciatti 's and Franks
Nursery would be enclosed. The Franks Nursery national
prototype building had been modified to integrate with
Ciatti 's . A wrought iron fence would section off the
outdoor storage area . The meters and mechanical equipment
would be adequately screened.
Sandstad asked if the proponent was aware that the City
Council was encouraging outdoor storage to be developed
outside of the major center area. Struthers replied yes .
• Jim Cleary, representing Franks Nursery, stated that the
site was very important to Franks Nursery and everything
Planning Commission Minutes 8 November 13, 1989
• would be done to make it as beautiful as possible .
Sandstad believed that a nursery was needed in Eden
Prairie; however, he was not convinced that this would be
the most appropriate site.
Cleary stated that they had tried to enclose the outdoor
sales area as much as possible. Sandstad asked if there
was any way to improve the appearance of the poly-house
structure. Bill Velch, District Manager for Franks
Nursery, replied that the sides could be raised and
lowered in the appropriate weather conditions.
Hallett recommended that Staff evaluate the sight lines
for the poly-house. Hallett did not believe this proposal
would add to the major center area. Hallett was concerned
about the amount of outdoor storage area provided and
questioned why this would be much larger than any of
Franks Nursery's other facilities . Cleary replied that
with the larger outdoor area less frequent deliveries
would be required. Cleary added that the business volume
in this area dictated a larger yard. Velch added that the
best stores have outdoor sales areas of over 40,000 square
feet.
Hallett questioned if the intent was for this site to
. become a holding area for the land to drive the price up.
Cleary replied that was not the intent of Franks Nursery.
Velch added that only two stores had been closed in over
35 years of business .
Hallett asked what the capital expenditure would be for
the permanent structure . Cleary replied approximately
$1,200,000.
Brody stated that Franks Nursery's were located throughout
the Twin City metro area and several of the locations were
near regional retail centers . Brody added that the
proponent had tried to address the concerns of Staff.
Franzen noted that the main concern was the amount of
outdoor sales and display space . Franzen added that the
Menard's outdoor storage area had only been allowed with
provisions for appropriate screening and this had required
variances. Staff had recommended the site next to Crown
Auto; however, because of poor soil conditions this would
not be possible . Franzen stated that Staff was concerned
about the impact to surrounding areas . The multiple
frontages would require the development of a front door
appearance for the back side of the building; however,
with the loading area in this location this would be
• difficult . Franzen stated that the only alternative would
be to screen the back side of the facility. Staff was
also concerned about a precedent being established. The
Planning Commission Minutes 9 November 13, 1989
• project would be visible from Highway 169 and it was
important to obtain sight lines from the adjoining
properties . Franzen noted that a brick wall had been used
for screening at Target and could possible work well in
this case . Another possibility for consideration would be
to raise the height of the retaining wall.
George Bentley, 10800 Fieldcrest Road, representing John
Teeman, stated that originally this site was proposed as a
5-story convention hotel. Bentley added that approval for
a building on this site was granted by the City Council
with the conditions that the back site would have the same
appearance as the front of the building and could not
proceed until Ciatti 's was built. Bentley believed that
outdoor sales use such as Franks Nursery would not be an
appropriate use for this site . Bentley stated that the
City had worked hard to keep this type of development out
of the major center area. He added that this site is the
gateway to Eden Prairie. Bentley believed that outdoor
storage should only be accommodated on the north side of
Highway 5 as originally planned and added that the City
had questioned at one time if any outdoor storage would be
allowed in Eden Prairie at all . Bentley stated that this
was a fine well planned proposal; however, it did not meet
the City's intent for this area. Bentley believed that
allowing Franks Nursery to locate on this site would set a
• precedent.
David Bell, 11841 Dunhill Road, stated that this proposal
was a great idea, but was in the wrong location. Bell
believed that an outdoor cafe would be a more appropriate
use for this location. Bell believed that it would be
difficult to dress up the outdoor sales area effectively
with berms and screening. He added that this was the core
of Eden Prairie business area and that a building on this
site should have a special architectural nature . Bell
stated that Eden Prairie had very high standards for its
developments and believed that these standard should be
maintained on this site.
Brody stated that the outdoor areas at Franks Nursery
would be used for outdoor sales and display and believed
that if was an unfair comparison to outdoor storage of
boats or recreational vehicles. Brody concurred with the
statement that this site was the gateway to Eden Prairie;
however, the areas around the site were developing as
retail facilities and there was no plan for office use.
Brody believed that this was a high quality project with a
high quality appearance.
Hallett asked if the parking spaces provided would be
adequate . Franzen replied that based on the comments
received from other communities, the parking would be
adequate .
Planning Commission Minutes 10 November 13, 1989
• Hallett asked if Ciatti 's had seen the plans and had made
any comments. Brody replied that Ciatti 's had reviewed
the plans and was positive about the proposal. Brody
added that the customer count for Franks Nursery would be
similar to that of a furniture store .
Ruebling asked for the definition of outdoor display areas
from the City Ordinance . Ruebling believed that it would
be possible to close off the area in an attractive manor .
Franzen replied that the type of material and height would
need to be taken into consideration. The height should be
kept below the fence line . The ordinance states that
outdoor sales should be kept to 10% of the base area ratio
for the ground floor . Ruebling believed that if the fence
were solid and not wrought iron, the outdoor area would be
hidden.
Dodge questioned if the outdoor area were hidden would
this still be setting a precedent for outdoor storage.
Hallett stated that if screening could be provided to
screen the entire outdoor display area from view, then he
believed a precedent would not be set. Hallett added that
the screening would have to be attractively done .
Sandstad believed that it would still be outdoor storage
. and would still be setting a precedent . Sandstad further
questioned what would happen if Franks Nursery vacated
this site . He believed that it would then be virtually
impossible for the City not to permit another type of
outdoor storage.
Bauer questioned if the City would allow outdoor storage
of boats, etc . in this area, if it could be entirely
hidden from view.
Sandstad asked Ruebling if he was recommending 100%
screening. Ruebling replied no, Franks Nursery had a
product which required sunlight. Ruebling stated that he
was recommending a high quality screening which would
still provide for the needs of Franks Nursery to operate a
successful business . Franzen stated that if a glass roof
were provided it would not be considered outdoor storage .
Franzen added that the screening would need to block the
view from Highway 169 .
Ruebling believed that a convenience would be created for
the residents by having this type of a business in the
major center area. Ruebling added that the key was the
screening needed to be high quality. Ruebling asked the
proponent if they were willing to provide the type of
. quality the Planning Commission was requesting. Brody
replied that the proponent was interested in satisfying
the Planning Commission request and would do everything
Planning Commission Minutes 11 November 13, 1989
necessary on the condition that these measures would not
disrupt Franks Nursery's ability to conduct its business
successfully and allow the public to know what products
were being sold. Brody added that he did not have a
problem with providing a solid wall for the rear of the
facility.
Struthers stated that the picket or wrought iron fence
would provide the window like affect needed for the retail
center. Ruebling recommended the use of display windows
similar to that of a florist shop. Struthers replied that
further study could be done; however, visibility of the
product was important to the business . Ruebling stated
that the height of the fence would be an important issue.
Ruebling added that it was also necessary that the back
side of the facility look like the front.
Bauer stated that he was willing to look at revised plans.
Bauer noted that two commissioners were absent and that
maybe there views would be different and, therefore a
continuance would be appropriate. Brody replied that he
would like to work with Staff and return to the Planning
Commission as soon as possible.
Bentley cautioned the Planning Commission about the
precedent which could be set. He believed that there was
a very fine line between outdoor display and outdoor
storage which was totally fenced off from view. Bentley
believed that this was not a gray area and was clearly
stated in the ordinance that it was not allowed in this
area.
Ruebling believed that a very attractively done atrium
could be a possible solution.
MOTION:
Bauer moved, seconded by Sandstad to close the Public
Hearing . Motion carried 5-0-0 .
MOTION•
Ruebling moved, seconded by Hallett to reopen the Public
Hearing. Motion carried 3-2-0.
MOTION•
Ruebling moved, seconded by Hallett to continue this item
to the December 11, 1989 Planning Commission meeting with
the plans to be revised based on the recommendations
presented by the Planning Commission and Staff at this
. meeting. Motion carried 3-2-0 .
D. FARBER ADDITION, by Roger Farber . Request for Zoning
1 '
Planning Commission Minutes 12 November 13, 1989
• District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 3 .7 acres, with
variances for road frontage to be reviewed by the Board of
Appeals, Preliminary Plat of 7 . 6 acres into 3 single
family lots and one outlot. Location: 6525 Rowland Road.
Frank Cardarelle, representing the proponent, stated that
Dr. Farber had moved out of state and because of the
uniqueness of the existing home and the large amount of
acreage, he was having difficulty selling the home and
property and, therefore, proposed to subdivide the
property into 3 single-family lots and one outlot . The
open space to the north was a drainage area and would
remain as such. The existing easement for the common
driveway was at a 12% grade. Cardarelle stated that Dr.
Farber wanted to save as many of the trees as possible.
The lots were actually larger than required for R1-22
zoning; however, with the R1-22 zoning city sewer and
water would be required. Cardarelle added that the
watermain was already in place and the feasibility study
for sewer would be completed shortly. Cardarelle noted
that there was a hardship being placed on Dr . Farber to
sell the home and the property. The outlot would be
retained for the future and may or may not be developed.
Cardarelle concurred with the recommendations outlined in
the Staff Report dated November 9, 1989 with the exception
of Item 1.A. , which recommended the combination of Outlot
• A into Lot 3 and a cross access easement.
Sandstad stated that he was concerned about the 12% grade
for the driveway and asked if there was any way to reduce
the grade. Cardarelle replied no.
Scott Kipp reported that Staff was concerned about future
access being provided for the outlot. There was no
guarantee that the neighboring property would provide
access . Another concern was the possible hazards
presented by the steep grade for the driveway. The lot
was heavily wooded and the tree inventory had indicated
that the sizes of the trees did not warrant replacement.
The 100-year flood elevation had not been determined for
this parcel at this time by the Watershed District. The
home proposed for Lot 3 would be at the same elevation as
that of the existing home.
David Bell, 11841 Dunhill Road, presented a handout to the
Planning Commission related to the wetland areas of Eden
Prairie. Bell stressed that the wetland areas were being
diminished drastically and that 60% of the applications
affecting the wetlands only affected 1 acre or less at a
time and, therefore, the losses did not seem significant
at the time. Bell said that over 75% of the wetlands
• around Bryant Lake had already been eliminated. Bell
explained the affect on the lake when the wetlands
surrounding it were destroyed. Bell believed that it
I
I - I � � '
,J _ � i i�I i � _ �
_ � � - � � i 1 � � ._ 1 ,,
I ! I, _ �� _ _ I _
� � � I �1 _
I
I ,1 _ � 1 I
r, ' . _ ,-
1 _. _ , , I_I � - � .- I, i �n
�- � ' � - i-i�,_ � I � nJ � _ ,
I ,1_, � i.� I 1 r� n� ,
I� I _ � - .� � 11 ,�f _ �l � - ,'. _
I � �a i_1 '��1,, �� .,i � ., 1 _ � l�. _ �, J � � _ I_
�, i ili- � � = 4 ��f 1} . I, , ( � it-„ -, '
_ 1, � � .� 1 .�i 1. t I 1 I � ,
•_ - � I i _ _�_ �_ _ , i
.. � � I i- � ., � , ,
i �1 _ _ i 1
_ _ � _ ..� 1 � _ I _ _
} ! _ I
� i I
' � _ �� � � '
�1 i ,
' 1 ' _ � _
, , •
Planning Commission Minutes 13 November 13, 1989
would be appropriate for the City to become involved in a
study on the impact of development on the wetlands around
Bryant Lake and other areas of the City. Bell encouraged
the City to become involved in wetland preservation. Bell
stated that even though only 2 acres of wetland were
involved in this project it could be another 2 acres lost .
Sandstad asked if Bell had talked to the City Staff
regarding the 110 Wetland Loss" . Bell replied that he had
not. Bell further explained information which he had
received from a seminar on wetland preservation.
Chris Tangen, 11735 Boulder Bay Road, was concerned about
the cross access proposed for Outlot A which would go
across the peat bog. Tangen stated that the 2 building
sites seemed appropriate.
Sandra Landucci, 8347 Windsong Drive, was concerned about
the shared driveway for Lot 3 which would run along her
property line . Landucci believed that the grade for the
driveway presented several safety hazards. She added the
Rowland Road itself was a safety problem because of the
grades. Landucci presented pictures which showed the
driveway and the steep grade . She noted that a car going
in would not be able to see a car coming out.
. Sandstad asked Landucci if Staff had mentioned the use of
flag lots when she had contacted them. Landucci stated
that she had been told when they purchased their property
that flag lots were not allowed in Eden Prairie.
Ed Sieber, 11792 Dunhill Road, questioned why R1-13 . 5 lots
were being requested when the lots would be approximately
2 acres or more . Sieber said that by approving R1-13. 5
the lots could be subdivided at a later date and
questioned if some type of guarantee could be obtained
that only 1 home would be constructed on these sites.
Sieber was concerned about going through the wetlands to
Outlot A, but knew of no other way to get there. Sieber
voiced a concern regarding the proposed storm sewer and
potential drainage problems. He further believed that it
was important that the new homes be constructed at a high
enough elevation to avoid water problems .
Cliff Bodin, 6400 Shady Oak Road declined to make comment
at this time .
Scott Connell, 11732 Boulder Bay Road, stated that he
owned one of the lots which bordered this property.
Connell was concerned about the impact on the wetlands and
its potential to affect his home . Connell noted that his
• home was located between two drainage ponds . Connell
concurred with the other concerns voiced by the previous
neighbors . Connell believed that when the City granted a
Planning Commission Minutes 14 November 13, 1989
• variance, that it should receive something in return.
Connell would like to see Outlot A dedicated to the City
so that construction could not take place in the future.
Connell was also concerned about the addition of 2 to 3
more driveways on Rowland Road.
George Tangen, 7034 Willow Creek Road, stated that his son
had purchased property in this area based on information
that he had given him. Tangen said that Dr. Farber
originally had approximately 20 acres, which had been
subdivided twice already. He added that one of the
drainage ponds was man-made and created by Dr . Farber .
Tangen stated that the entire outlot was a peat bog.
Tangen believed that the City should take into
consideration the preservation of Bryant Lake.
Sandstad believed that the plans presented to the Planning
Commission were not complete and did not show all of the
adjacent lots. Cardarelle replied that he had used the
information he was given. Cardarelle stated that R1-13 .5
zoning was chosen because of the requirement for sewer and
water . Cardarelle stated that the property could not be
subdivided any further. Cardarelle noted that the City
was requesting the cross easement access to the outlot,
not Dr . Farber . Kipp replied that the City was not sure
how the Bodin property would develop at this time.
• Hallett stated that the neighbors had presented valid
concerns . He believed that it was not the City's
responsibility to guarantee Dr. Farber a return on his
investment. Hallett believed that the plan had too many
loose ends. He was concerned about crossing the wetlands .
Cardarelle stated that Dr. Farber did not want to develop
the wetland and added that R1-22 zoning would be
acceptable.
Ruebling asked if an agreement could be reached between
Boudin and Farber regarding a cross easement. Franzen
replied that the intent was that Outlot A not become land-
locked. Ruebling believed that a logical access to the
Outlot would be through the Bodin property. Ruebling
stated that he did not believe that a hardship situation
had been proved.
Landucci re-emphasized her concern for the hazards of the
driveway used by 2 families . Ruebling stated that the
driveway already existed. Ruebling added that flag lots
had been allowed by the City when the terrain of the land
warranted them. Franzen stated that when flag lots were
allowed there had always been a benefit to the City.
Franzen noted that R1-44 zoning was also used by the City
when sites had special features . Ruebling then asked if
these lots could meet R1-44 zoning. Franzen replied that
Planning Commission Minutes 15 November 13, 1989
• the lot with the existing home would not meet R1-44.
Ruebling asked if the drainage easements could prohibit
any development on the Outlot in the future. Franzen
replied that development would be not be permitted due to
the drainage easements.
Sandstad believed that it was appropriate that the plan be
returned to the proponent for further consideration.
Sandstad added that he could not support the filling of
the wetlands.
Hallett concurred with the concerns related to the filling
of the wetlands.
MOTION:
Sandstad moved, seconded by Hallett to continue this item
to the December 11, 1989 Planning Commission meeting.
Motion carried 5-0-0 .
E. SUPERAMERICA CAR WASH, by Crosstown Investors. Request
for Zoning District Change from Rural to N-Com on 0 . 05
acres, Zoning District Amendment and Site Plan Review
within the N-Com Zoning District on 1.2 acres, Preliminary
Plat of 6. 2 acres into one lot and one outlot for
• construction of a car wash addition to the existing Super
America station. Location: North of City West Parkway,
west of Shady Oak Road.
Franzen reported that the Planning Commission had approved
a specific plan for the SuperAmerica gas station to be
constructed and that at this time the proponent was
requesting a change to add a car wash.
Jim Ostenson, representing the proponent, presented the
revised plans to add a car wash to the SuperAmerica
facility. Accommodations had been made for the traffic
circulation. Ostenson stated that the proponent concurred
with the Staff recommendations.
Roman Mueller, representing SuperAmerica, asked Staff to
clarify what it meant by a pitched roof over the car wash.
Mueller questioned if a Mansard roof would be acceptable.
Franzen replied that the recommendation related to the
need for the architectural consistency with the daycare
center. Franzen added that a flat roof would not
contribute to the residential character desired for the
project. Franzen stated that the roof had to come to a
peak . Sandstad stated that Staff 's intent was to have the
roof match that of the proposed original structure.
. Mueller believed that a Mansard design would accomplish
this.
1 :I 1 ,
1 - - 11A II
Planning Commission Minutes 16 November 13, 1989
Sandstad asked if there would be any way to keep the water
drainage from freezing in the driveway and entrances.
Mueller replied that it would be possible to construct
trenches to control the drainage.
Franzen reported that Staff recommended approval of the
project based on the recommendations outlined in the Staff
report dated November 9, 1989 and further requested that
the plans be revised prior to review by the City Council .
Mueller questioned the Planning Commission on the pitched
roof-Mansard roof issue. The Commission responded
unanimously that the pitched roof was needed.
MOTION 1•
Ruebling moved, seconded by Sandstad to close the public
hearing. Motion carried 5-0-0.
MOTION 2•
Ruebling moved, seconded by Sandstad to recommend to the
City Council approval of the request of Crosstown
Investors for Zoning District Change from Rural to N-Comm
on 0 .5 acres, Zoning District Amendment and Site Plan
Review within the N-Comm Zoning District on 1.2 acres for
• SuperAmerica Car Wash, based on plans dated November 3,
1989, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report
dated November 9, 1989 with the addition of the drainage
trench from the exit drive of the car wash. Motion
carried 5-0-0.
MOTION 3 :
Ruebling moved, seconded by Sandstad to recommend to the
City Council approval of the request of Crosstown
Investors for Preliminary Plat of 6.2 acres into one lot
and one outlot for construction of a car wash addition to
the SuperAmerica Station, based on plans dated November 3,
1989, subject to the recommendations of the Staff REport
dated November 9, 1989 with the addition of the drainage
trench from the exit drive of the car wash. Motion
carried 5-0-0.
V. OLD BUSINESS
Hallett thanked Staff for the memorandum on cemeteries.
MOTION•
Hallett moved, seconded by Sandstad to forward the cemetery
• memorandum to the City Council . Motion carried 5-0-0 .
VI . NEW BUSINESS
Planning Commission Minutes 17 November 13, 1989
Hallett asked if Staff was aware of a 110 Wetland Loss" which
41 had been referred to by Commissioner Sandstad. Sandstad
stated that he would support a recommendation to the City
Council to consider the adoption of a 110 Wetland Loss Policy" .
Franzen stated that the City was currently working on an
updated inventory of the wetlands.
VII . PLANNER'S REPORT
VIII . ADJOURNMENT
MOTION•
Bauer moved, seconded by Sandstad to adjourn the meeting at
11:25 PM. Motion carried 5-0-0.
•