Planning Commission - 11/27/1989 AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, November 27, 1989
7:30 p.m.
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairperson Julianne Bye, Richard
Anderson, Tim Bauer, Christine Dodge,
Robert Hallett, Charles Ruebling.
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. ALPINE CENTER, by Lariat Companies. Request for
Planned Unit Development District Review on
approximately 18 acres, Zoning District Change from
Office 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.
8: 05 B. COUNTRY GLEN 2ND ADDITION, by Coffman Development.
Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-
13 .5 on 6.7 acres, Preliminary Plat of 6.7 acres
into 14 single family lots and road right-of-way.
Location: East of Duck Lake Road, west of Claycross
Way and Country Road. A public hearing.
8:35 C. INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL, PHASE II, by International
School of Minnesota, Inc. Request for Site Plan
Review within the Public Zoning District on
approximately 38 acres for construction of a 27,640
square foot addition. Location: South of Crosstown
#62, north of Bryant Lake, west of Nine Mile Creek.
A public hearing.
•
9: 05 D. EDEN ROAD OFFICE BUILDING, by Auburn Inns, Inc.
• Request for Zoning District Amendment within the
Office Zoning District on 1.24 acres with parking
setback and Shoreland Ordinance variances to be
reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Site Plan Review
on 1.24 acres for construction of a 12,980 square
foot multi-story office building. Location: North
of Eden Road, west of the Eden Prairie Food Fare
Building. A public hearing.
9:35 E. ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS Amendments to Chapter 11.
A public meeting.
V. OLD BUSINESS
VI. NEW BUSINESS
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
•
40
. PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVED MINUTES
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 1989 7: 30 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7600 Executive Drive
COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Julianne Bye, Tim Bauer,
Christine Dodge, Robert Hallett,
Charles Ruebling, Douglas Sandstad
COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Richard Anderson
STAFF MEMBERS : Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Don
Uram, Assistant Planner; Deb Edlund,
Recording Secretary
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
I . APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION•
Bauer moved, seconded by Ruebling to approve the Agenda as
published . Motion carried 6-0-0 .
II . MEMBERS REPORTS
III . MINUTES
A. Minutes of the November 13, 1989 Planning Commission
Meeting
MOTION:
Ruebling moved, seconded by Sandstad to approve the
Minutes of the November 13, 1989 Planning Commission
meeting as published and amended.
CORRECTIONS :
Page 13, Paragraph 1, Sentence 1, should read: regarding
the 110 Wetland Loss" .
Page 15, Paragraph 1, Sentence 2, was added as follows :
Franzen replied that development would not be permitted on
the outlot due to the drainage easements.
Page 16, Section VI . NEW BUSINESS, should read: was aware
of a 110 Wetland Loss" which. . . . .
Motion carried 5-1. Bye abstained.
i
Planning Commission Minutes 2 November 27, 1989
• IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. ALPINE _CENTER, by Lariat Companies . Request for Planned
Unit Development District Review on approximately 18
acres, Zoning District Change from Office 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.
Ed Flaherty stated that the architectural concept for the
area began approximately 1 year ago and would extend
beyond the Alpine Center . The main anchor for the Alpine
Center would be a pancake house .
Richard Waldorski, representing the proponent, stated that
the 3 . 5 acre site would have a restaurant located at the
northwest corner, with retail businesses throughout the
remainder of the Center . A generous green space area
would be provided to the south of the Center . The
easement agreements for grading would be completed prior
to City Council review.
Tim Widel, representing the proponent, presented the plans
for the site, which depicted tree lined streets,
• historically decorative lighting, generously landscaped
islands, and a 3 foot berm to provide screening for the
parking lot. Widel added that the proponent would
continue to work with Staff regarding the vegetation
replacement requirements .
Hallett asked if the trees on the berm and along the
street would be killed by the salt from the snowplows.
Franzen replied that if the trees were actually located in
the boulevard area there would be concern for the survival
of the trees . Widel added that the trees would be along
the back edge of the green space area . Franzen added that
the trees would be located approximately 50 feet from
Prairie Center Drive and 30 feet from Commonwealth Drive.
Sandstad asked if the parking area would be reduced by the
need for snow storage space during the winter . Franzen
replied that most businesses removed the snow from the
site .
Widel presented that plans for the architectural design of
the building. The style would be a prairie-style
architecture with a "book-end" appearance. The brick
color had not been selected at this time; however, a
burgundy color was being considered, with a darker color
brick to be used to provide a band around the building.
• The building would be 1 story, having various depths to
accommodate the tenants needs . The signage was proposed
as white back light letters .
Planning Commission Minutes 3 November 27, 1989
• Sandstad asked if grading was necessary off-site, would
additional trees be lost. Waldorski replied that the
trees would not be affected by any grading.
Uram reported that Staff recommended approval of the
project based on the Staff recommendations outlined in the
Staff Report dated November 24, 1989 . Uram added that the
signage band would need to be reviewed further and that
Staff 's recommendation was that the signage be similar to
that of the Lariat Center . A grading agreement would need
to be submitted.
Ruebling asked if further detail was necessary regarding
the signage prior to approval . Flaherty replied that the
proponent would continue to work with Staff . He added
that the key issue was to provide uniformity.
Ruebling asked if the back of the building would face the
street. Uram replied that the traffic study recommended a
3-way intersection at this site; however, the backs of two
buildings would face each other .
Hallett asked Uram if Staff was comfortable with the
lighting proposed . Uram replied yes .
• Hallett asked Flaherty if he had other property which
would combine with this development. Flaherty showed the
Planning Commission where his other property holdings were
located . He added that this area would be considered as
the main entrance to the downtown area. Hallett then
asked Uram if the property owned by other developers in
this area would be given direction to continue the
architectural style used on this project. Uram replied
that the architectural style would be encouraged; however,
it could not be required . Franzen added that provisions
are provided in the Site Plan Review which related to
architectural compatibility for adjacent sites .
Flaherty noted that a special sidewalk design from the
curb to the parking lot was in the planning stages .
Bye stated that she was pleased to see the proposal for
different brick colors.
MOTION 1•
Bauer moved, seconded by Sandstad to close the public
hearing . Motion carried 6-0-0 .
MOTION 2•
• Bauer moved, seconded by Sandstad to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Lariat Companies for
Planned Unit Development District Review on approximately
Planning Commission Minutes 4 November 27, 1989
• 18 acres for construction of a 29,500 square foot retail
center to be known as Alpine Center, based on plans dated
October 20, 1989, subject to the recommendations of the
Staff Report dated November 24, 1989 . Motion carried 6-0-
0 .
MOTION 3•
Bauer moved, seconded by Sandstad to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Lariat Companies for
Zoning District Change from Office to C-Reg-Ser and Site
Plan Review on 3 . 58 acres for construction of a 27, 500
square foot retail center to be known as Alpine Center,
based on plans dated October 20, 1989, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated November 24,
1989 . Motion carried 6-0-0 .
B. COUNTRY GLEN 2ND ADDITION, by Coffman Development.
Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13 .5
on 6.7 acres, Preliminary Plat of 6. 7 acres into 14 single
family lots and road right-of-way. Location: East of
Duck Lake Road, west of Claycross Way and Country Road . A
public hearing.
Ron Bastyr, representing the proponent, presented the
plans for the westerly extension of Country Glen 1st
Addition. The project would consist of 14 lots, one of
which was an existing home . Bastyr stated that the
proponent agreed with the Staff recommendations regarding
the tree replacement requirements due to the tree loss
from grading.
Uram reported that Staff recommended approval of the
project based on the recommendations outlined in the Staff
Report dated November 24, 1989 . The project was a
continuance of Country Glen lst Addition . Uram added that
all of the lots met the minimum requirements.
Hallett asked how many homes were originally planned for
the entire subdivision. Bastyr replied that the original
plan provided for 20 homes; however, 1 had been
eliminated.
MOTION 1•
Dodge moved, seconded by Bauer to close the public
hearing. Motion carried 6-0-0 .
MOTION 2•
Dodge moved, seconded by Bauer to recommend to the City
• Council approval of the request of Coffman Development for
Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13 .5 on 6. 7 acres
for single family residential development to be known as
Planning Commission Minutes 5 November 27, 1989
• Country Glen 2nd Addition, based on plans dated November
13, 1989, subject to the recommendations of the Staff
Report dated November 24, 1989 .
Ruebling asked if the sidewalk to the south went
completely through . Uram replied that he would check on
this item.
Motion carried 6-0-0 .
MOTION 3•
Dodge moved, seconded by Bauer to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Coffman Development for
Preliminary Plat of 6. 7 acres into 14 single family lots
and road right-of-way, to be known as Country Glen 2nd
Addition, based on plans dated November 13, 1989, subject
to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated November
24, 1989 . Motion carried 6-0-0.
C. INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL, PHASE II, by International School of
Minnesota, Inc. Request for Site Plan Review within the
Public Zoning District on approximately 38 acres for
construction of a 27,640 square foot addition. Location:
South of Crosstown #62, north of Bryant Lake, west of Nine
• Mile Creek .
Tracy Whitehead, representing the proponent, stated that
the school had become very successful and had outgrown
it 's current space . The request before the Planning
Commission was to continue with Phase II of the original
plan presented approximately 2 years ago. The brick and
architectural style would match that of the existing
facility. Whitehead added that minimal grading would be
necessary.
Dodge asked Whitehead if the proponent was in agreement
with the Staff recommendations . Whitehead replied that
items 3 and 4 had been taken care of some time ago.
Whitehead added that the temporary wall would eventually
be torn down when the addition for another basketball
court was constructed . An additional part of this
building would be a kitchen expansion and cafeteria, which
would be the driving force to determine the timing of
construction.
Bye asked for clarification on when the temporary wall
would be torn down. Whitehead replied that the proponent
hoped to be able to proceed with the addition within 2 to
3 years. Whitehead added that the proponent had agreed to
paint the wall until it could be replaced. She stated
• that the funds had not been available until this time to
accomplish the painting.
Planning Commission Minutes 6 November 27, 1989
. Franzen reported that the 2nd Phase was exactly the same
as had been originally proposed. The approval of Phase II
would be conditional on the completion of Items 1 and 2 as
outlined in the Staff Report dated November 24, 1989 .
Franzen added that the proponent had indicated a
willingness to provide these items . Franzen noted that
Bill McHale had written a letter stating a concern about
the view of the brick wall and was present to address the
Planning Commission.
Ruebling asked what the status was regarding the park and
trail situations . Franzen replied that more detailed
information would be forthcoming. He added that Doug
Bryant from Hennepin County had indicated to Bob Lambert
that the County might still be interested in the trail .
Franzen stated that if the County were not interested the
Park, Recreation and Natural Resources Department may wish
to propose that the City acquire the trail . Ruebling
stated that it appeared that this trail was a critical
link in the City's trail system. Whitehead stated that
the School had signed an exchange agreement and had begun
condemnation proceedings for the 11 acres, when
significant Staff changes at Hennepin County had stopped
the proceedings .
• Dodge asked Staff if the property involved in the trail
and park land had been used as a trade-off in lieu of cash
park fees . Franzen replied that the fees had been reduced
significantly, but had not replaced the cash park fees
entirely.
Hallett asked if the issue of the park and trail land
would be explored further . Franzen replied that it would
be reviewed by the Parks, Recreation, and Natural
Resources Commission also.
Bye recommended that a separate motion be made to convey
the Planning Commission's opinion on the trail and park
land.
Bill McHale, 12237 Chadwich Lane, stated that he had
purchased his home after the school had come before the
City to get approval of the original plan. McHale was
concerned about the view of a building, which gave the
appearance of being unfinished. He added that landscaping
had not been provided to help mitigate the appearance .
McHale stated that he was unaware of any other development
in Eden Prairie which was not required to have a brickface
wall . McHale believed that the unfinished issues of the
1st Phase should be taken care of before the school was
allowed to proceed with Phase II .
Ruebling asked McHale if he had specific recommendations.
McHale replied that the brick should be scored and
Planning Commission Minutes 7 November 27, 1989
• painted.
Dodge was concerned that a temporary wall had been allowed
for over 2 years .
Franzen stated that he recalled from the original proposal
that the wall was to be finished brick . The school had
planned to only complete part of the gym at that time and
the City had been told that a textured concrete would be
installed . Franzen added that other projects had been
approved with temporary walls with variances which
designated a specific time frame to bring into compliance
with City Code .
Sandstad asked Whitehead if the school was aware that the
wall was not within City Code . Whitehead replied no.
Bye believed that it was important that something be done
to mitigate the non-compliance . Whitehead replied that
the school had tried to fit in with the neighborhood.
Sandstad stated that he supported the Staff
recommendations for approval .
Bauer stated that just painting the wall would still not
be in compliance with City Code .
McHale believed that it was important to set a time limit
on the "temporary" wall .
Bauer asked Franzen if the City had approved any other
projects where the proponent was in for a second phase
when the first phase was still not within compliance with
City requirements. Franzen replied no. Bauer then asked
Franzen if Staff was comfortable approving Phase II with
Phase I not in compliance . Franzen replied that the City
was trying to be tolerant; however, he believed that a
time frame should be established to require compliance
with City Code . Bauer asked Franzen what the City's
response would be to the next developer which said that it
wished to proceed with a second phase before finishing
phase one . Franzen replied that if the City Council
concurred Staff would have to allow other temporary walls
to be constructed.
Hallett asked what the estimated price difference would be
between painting the wall and requiring that the wall be
completed in brick . McHale estimated that cost to paint
at approximately $3,000 and to brick approximately
$25, 000 .
Bye stated that recently the Planning Commission had
denied plans for a Church which had proposed temporary
facilities because the time frame was over 1 year . Bye
Planning Commission Minutes 8 November 27, 1989
. believed that 2 years was too long to allow temporary use .
Hallett asked McHale if he would be comfortable if the
wall were painted, landscaping provided, and a time limit
established for compliance. McHale replied that he had
already looked at this wall for 1 year . He added that he
did not want to have the situation allowed to continue for
another 2 years . McHale stated that Eden Prairie had
always set high development standards, which he believed
should be maintained . He added that loading areas in
industrial parks cannot use concrete block, which for the
most part cannot be seen, but this wall is highly visible .
Ruebling asked Whitehead how successful the school needed
to be before the new gym could be constructed . Whitehead
replied that the kitchen and cafeteria would be the
driving force . Whitehead noted that any time the school
wished to do any construction it was required to return
through the Planning Commission.
Ruebling stated that he would be uncomfortable with a 2
year extension for the temporary wall . Ruebling believed
that a compromise could be made; however, painting was not
enough, a specific time limit needed to be established and
landscaping was essential .
• Sandstad stated that he was not comfortable with allowing
the wall to painted. Sandstad recommended consideration
of exterior plaster or stucco.
Bob Carlson, developer for Bryant Point, recommended the
consideration of stucco and landscaping with evergreens .
Carlson estimated the cost of this combination to be
approximately $10,000 . He added that the evergreens could
be transplanted to other locations at a later time.
Carlson noted that a 20-foot evergreen would cost
approximately $500 each.
Sandstad stated that he would like to hear from the
school 's architect and have a recommendation presented for
mitigation somewhere between paint and brick .
Whitehead believed that the wall was in compliance based
on what the school had been told to do. She added that
City inspectors had approved the wall . Franzen noted that
the wall was approved based on a texture block surface,
which was in compliance with City Code; however, it was
constructed with concrete.
Dodge stated that the wall was not within City Code, this
was a precedent setting issue, and that the cost to the
school should not be considered as an issue .
Franzen stated that there were several different types of
Planning Commission Minutes 9 November 27, 1989
• inspections . He added that a letter had been received
from the architect which said that a decorative block wall
would be constructed. Franzen concurred with the
recommendation to receive input from the architect.
Bauer stated that he would have significant difficulty
approving anything which was not in compliance with City
Code .
Bye believed that temporary meant for a time period of one
year or less .
Ruebling asked if stucco would be in compliance with City
Code . Franzen replied yes . Ruebling believed that it was
essential to have trees planted along the wall.
MOTION:
Sandstad moved, seconded by Ruebling to continue this item
to the December 11, 1989 Planning Commission meeting, with
the proponent to return with a permanent solution for the
east wall.
Carlson commented that the color chosen for the stucco
could have a significant impact on the appearance.
• McHale asked if the expansion of the new gym would require
that the exterior wall be brick if the Planning Commission
approved stucco as acceptable for the temporary wall .
Franzen replied that the Planning Commission's decision
would affect the final exterior wall requirement.
Motion to continue carried 6-0-0 .
D. EDEN ROAD OFFICE BUILDING, by Auburn Inns, Inc. Request
for Zoning District Amendment within the Office Zoning
District on 1 .24 acres with parking setback and Shoreland
Ordinance variances to be reviewed by the Board of
Appeals, Site Plan Review on 1 . 24 acres for construction
of a 12,980 square foot multi-story office building.
Location: North of Eden Road, west of the Eden Prairie
Food Fare Building. A public hearing.
Roger Dehring, the proponent, stated that the building
would be constructed as a corporate headquarters and would
not be leased . The proponent wished to construct a
facility which would provide a pleasant working atmosphere
for it 's Staff. Dehring added that proponent would like
to complete construction within approximately 1 year.
Anthony Scott, representing the proponent, presented the
plans for the office buildings . Phase I was to be a two-
story building to begin construction in May of 1990 .
Phase II would be a three-story office building with
Planning Commission Minutes 10 November 27, 1989
• construction to commence in 3-to-5 years . The design of
the building would provide a corporate image and yet be
sensitive to the amenities of the property. Scott stated
that the proponent considered the opportunity to construct
a facility on the lakeshore as a privilege . Phase I would
have 25 parking stalls, Phase II would have 26 parking
stalls, with an additional 17 spaces provided for proof-
of-parking. All parking areas would be screened with
evergreens . The pedestrian system would consist of a
conventional sidewalk system and a second system provided
to link the project to the lake .
Sandstad asked how the proponent would handle the steep
slope related to a walkway system. Scott replied that
some stairs would be required.
Scott presented samples of the exterior materials to be
used for the building.
Uram reported that in order to develop this site several
variances would be required. Uram added that the Staff
was concerned about the location of the parking and the
architecture of the building. Uram stated that the
parking areas would be difficult to screen from the lake
because of the downward slope to the lake . He said that
the architecture of this building was unlike any other in
the area. Uram noted that this evening was the first time
that Staff had seen the exterior building materials being
proposed .
Scott stated that the proponent had made every effort not
to encroach on the lake . Landscaping was planned along
the lakeshore area. Scott stated that the proponent was
also trying to preserve as much of the land as possible
and believed that the amount of lakeshore being used was
significantly less than any other previous plans presented
by other developers . The proponent would provide 6 to 8
foot evergreens along Eden Road . A retaining wall and
evergreens would be used to screen the buildings from the
trail . Scott added that the retaining walls would be
sloped and consist of natural material .
Ruebling noted that the parking surface was now sloped,
where in previous proposals it had been flat. Scott
replied that the grade for the slope was 5%. Dehring
stated that the previous proposals had more blacktop
surface than this proposal . Scott stated that the number
of cars visible from the lake would be minimal .
Bye noted that the previous proposals had utilized the
building itself to block the parking lot from view to the
west.
Ruebling was concerned about the angle of the views of the
Planning Commission Minutes 11 November 27, 1989
• parking lots .
Sandstad asked the proponent if there had been any effort
to tie the architecture of this building with the
neighboring facilities . Dehring stated that he did not
want to tie into the same architecture. Dehring stated
that he wanted a building image that was spectacular .
Hallett concurred that the other buildings in the area
were not the most attractive.
Scott stated that the exterior of the building would be of
a complimentary color.
Dehring stated that the proponent would be willing to
plant larger evergreen trees if necessary. He noted that
a portion of the retaining wall along Eden Road would be
of the same granite as the building.
Franzen stated that Staff had several concerns regarding
the project. The long-term use of this building may not
be with this particular owner . The relationship to the
lake and how close the building should be to the lake .
Franzen stated that Staff was concerned that part of the
proof-of-parking was the green area. Franzen added that
the impact of the building being closer to Eden Road was
still not completely determined. Franzen stated that
there needed to be some tie for this building to the
adjacent buildings and was not convinced that the gray
exterior material presented a strong enough tie .
Ruebling stated that this parcel of property was a
difficult piece to develop. Ruebling believed that the
building architecture was attractive and did not have a
problem with the proposed contrast. Ruebling was mainly
concerned about the screening of the parking areas .
Hallett asked if the adjacent property owners had been
notified and had made any comments for or against the
project . Dehring replied that both of the homes were up
for sale . Hallett asked Staff to contact Mr . Koiman
regarding this project. Hallett added that he liked the
proposal; however, there were still some issues which
needed to be resolved. Dehring replied that a continuance
to mid-January would cause a hardship for the proponent.
Bye stated that she would like to see plans showing the
sight lines from 78th Street. Bye was concerned about the
need for more parking space in the future and the location
of the proof-of-parking presently proposed.
Hallett stated that a portion of the parking lot would be
visible no matter what building was constructed on this
parcel .
Planning Commission Minutes 12 November 27, 1989
MOTION:
Ruebling moved, seconded by Bauer to continue the public
hearing to the December 11, 1989, Planning Commission
meeting in order to allow the proponent time to revise the
plans for the Eden Road Office Building, and to allow
Staff adequate time to review the plans and report back to
the Commission. Motion carried 5-1-0 . Sandstad voted no,
he wished to act on the plan at this time.
E. ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS Amendments to Chapter 11. A
public meeting.
Franzen reported that the amendments to Chapter 11 of the
City Code were recommended by Staff for adoption as
outlined in the memorandum.
Sandstad believed that the employment signs allowed were
large. Franzen replied that the City was receiving more
and more request for this type of sign . Sandstad believe
that because the signs were temporary in nature, they
should be of top quality.
MOTION•
• Sandstad moved, seconded by Ruebling to recommend to the
City Council approval of the proposed amendments to the
Zoning Chapter of the City Code, Chapter 11, per the Staff
memorandum dated November 20, 1989 . Motion carried 6-0-0.
V. OLD BUSINESS
VI . NEW BUSINESS
VII . PLANNER'S REPORT
VIII . ADJOURNMENT
MOTION:
Ruebling moved, seconded by Hallett to adjourn the meeting at
10 : 30 PM. Motion carried 6-0-0.
•