Loading...
Planning Commission - 12/11/1989 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, December 11, 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. i 7 : 35 A. 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 , 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 . 7 :40 B. MERMAID CAR WASH, Esberg Corporation . Request for Zoning District Change within the C-Reg-Ser District and Site Plan Review on 2. 17 acres for construction of a car wash facility. Location : Prairie View Center . A public hearing . 7 :45 C. 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. 78 acres with waivers , Site Plan Review and Zoning District Change from Rural and R1-22 to RM-6. 5 on 12 . 16 acres , 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 . City initiated Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment for relocation of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) Line to include an additional 7 acres of property for a mixed use development to be known as Jamestown . Location : South of Highway #5, east of West 184th Avenue. A continued public hearing . 8 : 15 D. FARBER ADDITION, by Roger Farber . Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-22 on 3. 7 acres with variances for road frontage to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals , and Preliminary Plat of 7.6 acres into 3 single family lots , and one outlot . Location : 6525 Rowland Road . A continued public hearing . 8 :45 E. INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL, PHASE II , by International School of Minnesota, Inc . Request for Zoning District Amendment with the Public Zoning District on approximately 38 acres , Site Plan Review 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 continued public hearing . 9 : 00 F. 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 continued public hearing . V. OLD BUSINESS VI . NEW BUSINESS VII . PLANNER ' S REPORT VIII . ADJOURNMENT • PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES MONDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1989 7:30 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7600 Executive Drive COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Julianne Bye, Richard Anderson, Tim Bauer, Christine Dodge, Robert Hallett, Charles Ruebling, Doug Sandstad STAFF MEMBERS: Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Don Uram, Assistant 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 7-0-0. II. MEMBERS REPORTS • III. MINUTES IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. 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, 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 continues public hearing. Franzen reported that the proponent had requested a continuance to the January 8, 1990 Planning Commission meeting. Staff would be meeting this week with representatives from Frank's Nursery District offices to review the revised plans. Ruebling encouraged Staff to emphasize to the proponent the importance that the outdoor area not look like an outdoor storage area from the parking lot. Franzen believed that the proponent understood this issue clearly based on the discussion by the Planning Commission at the last meeting. Planning Commission Minutes 2 December 11, 1989 • MOTION: Ruebling moved, seconded by Bauer to continue the public hearing to the January 8, 1990, Planning Commission meeting, returning the plans to the proponent for redesign of the site plan to completely screen the outdoor storage from adjacent uses and public roads. Motion carried 7-0- 0. B. MERMAID CAR WASH, Esberg Corporation. Request for Zoning District Change within the C-Reg-Ser District and Site Plan Review on 2.17 acres for construction of a car wash facility. Location: Prairie View Center. A public hearing. Franzen reported that the City had commissioned a traffic consultant to review the proposal. He added that based on the results of the traffic study, the proponent had requested a continuance to reconsider revision to the present proposal. MOTION• Bauer moved, seconded by Sandstad to continue the public hearing for Mermaid Car Wash to January 8, 1990, Planning • Commission meeting to allow proponent time for plan revisions. Motion carried 7-0-0. C. 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 60.78 acres with waivers, Site Plan Review and Zoning District Change from Rural and R1-22 to RM-6.5 on 12.16 acres, 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. City initiated Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment for relocation of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) Line to include an additional 7 acres of property for a mixed use development to be known as Jamestown. Location: South of Highway #5, east of West 184th Avenue. A continued public hearing. Franzen noted that the following issues needed consideration by the Planning Commission: 1. Adequate transition between the single family and multiple family lots. • 2. Adequate tree replacement. 3 . Substantiation of the request for a Comprehensive Guide Plan Change. Do the land uses proposed Planning Commission Minutes 3 December 11, 1989 . provide for preservation of additional site features? Ostenson presented the revised plans. The egress and ingress for the parking lot had been revised to provide better efficiency. The number of multiple-family units remained the same; however, in the area adjacent to the single-family units the units had been split to reduce the impact. Ostenson believed that the berming and landscaping would be more effective with the units being split. He added that the proponent would consider additional landscaping adjacent to the single-family units if necessary. Joint driveways had been provided on the minor collector road. Ostenson stated that a major concern had been the overall tree loss for the project. Ostenson believed that the number of trees actually being lost due to this project could be altered depending on how the plan was viewed. He noted that several trees were being removed because of the Highway 5 and the frontage road construction, yet were being counted as a loss due to this project. Ostenson added that significant oak trees were being removed due to the Dell Road construction. Ostenson stated that the location of the minor collector road was necessary as • proposed to provide an adequate distance between the intersection and Highway 5 and to match the Orin Thompson access. Ostenson believed that if these roads were already in place the actual tree loss attributed to this project would be significantly reduced. Dan Blake, representing the proponent, presented graphics which further demonstrated the difference in the tree loss depending on how the trees were counted. Ostenson stated that the proponent was concerned about the loss of the larger, more significant trees. A letter had been provided to Staff outlining the proponents plan to minimize the tree loss. A forester would be retained and extra care would be taken to preserve as many of the trees as possible. Ostenson stated that the proponent would be willing to bond for the full amount of the tree replacement required by Staff with the understanding that the bond would be reduced if additional trees were saved. Franzen reported that the key issue was if a change in the Comprehensive Guide Plan was supported by the proposed site plan. He added that Staff had been supportive of the multiple land uses. Franzen believed that the area south of the pond could be revised to provide for a better site plan. Franzen noted that the tree replacement was not a requirement of the City, but rather a mitigating factor for the preservation of trees chosen by the developer. He added that other means of mitigation had been considered Planning Commission Minutes 4 December 11, 1989 is in the past and Staff suggested that the proponent consider density transfer or cluster single family. Franzen added that the percentage of tree loss was not the main issue but whether this was the best site plan for the property. He added that he was disappointed that a 60 acre P.U.D. could not be developed to save the best and largest trees south of the pond. Ruebling asked Ostenson if the proponent would be willing to consider revising the plan for the area south of the pond. Ostenson replied that there were significant trees located in the area south of the pond and if the road were moved one way or another either oaks would be lost or ash trees would be lost. Ostenson stated that the proponent was not in disagreement with Staff regarding which species should be saved. Ruebling asked Franzen if Staff believed that the Tree Management Plan proposed by the proponent would save more trees. Franzen replied that he encouraged the proponent to try to save as many trees as possible; however, based on a study conducted by Staff it was determined that none of the projects with tree replacement had been able to save more trees than had been indicated in the original plans. • Bye requested that the Planning Commission first give consideration to the request for a Comprehensive Guide Plan change and then if appropriate consider the specific details of the site plan. Anderson believed that a variety of housing provided for a better City and that commercial development in this area was reasonable. Anderson further believed that the major area of tree loss was due to road construction and that some latitude should be given. Franzen noted that the greatest area of tree loss due to construction would be in the area south of the pond. Bye asked if the road placement was dictated. Franzen replied that the roads in the area to the north of the pond had been agreed upon with Orin Thompson homes. He added that a shift in the roadway did make a difference. Hallett asked if a play area would be provided in the area to the south of the pond. Franzen replied that the proponent had asked the City to accept an area as greenspace; however, the City planned for a park in another location within the Southwest Area. Hallett then asked what would happen to the greenspace area if the City • would not accept it as a park space. Dick Putnam replied that the area could not be built upon and would be left in a natural state. Planning Commission Minutes 5 December 11, 1989 Anderson asked Franzen what he meant in the Staff Report by "major revisions". Franzen replied that a major revision would be that no development take place within the wooded area or to look at smaller lots or cluster lots. Franzen added that a minor revision would be changing the location of the building pads, taking out one lot, and shifting the road to the south. Bauer stated that the most compelling reason he had noted for a change in the Comprehensive Guide Plan had been the provision of lower priced housing in Eden Prairie. Anderson believed that the expansion of Highway 5 would also support the change in the Comprehensive Guide Plan. Dodge asked if the road could be constructed in another location. Putnam replied that the road had been originally proposed 200 feet to the south. He added that in the present location the road would be more costly; however, more trees would be saved. Putnam believed that the flaw in the City's Tree Replacement Policy was that unless a tree was 12 inches in diameter it was not considered significant and was not counted. Franzen noted that if trees less than 12 inches were given credit for being preserved than the City also must count the smaller • trees that were lost due to construction as well. Bye stated that she would like to see additional trees saved in the area south of the pond. Ostenson replied that a significant number of trees have the potential to be lost in this area; however, the proponent would do everything possible to save as many of the trees as possible. Ruebling asked the overall density of the project. Franzen replied the area was guided 2 .5 units per acre. He added that the current proposal had more total units per acre plus the commercial development. Sandstad asked the status of the noise assessment study. Ostenson replied that the study had not been completed at this time, but did not anticipate any problems. Ostenson added that the study would be completed prior to City Council review. Sandstad questioned if the buffer was adequate between the single-family and multiple-family units. Ostenson replied that a berm would be provided, additional landscaping, a fence, and the building locations had been changed from the previous plan. • Sandstad questioned if the community would benefit enough to warrant a Comprehensive Guide Plan change. Ostenson replied that the medium density area had an open space Planning Commission Minutes 6 December 11, 1989 • provided, additional trees would be saved in the commercial area, and the community would be provided an alternative affordable housing. Dodge believed that further consideration needed to be given to save more trees in the area south of the pond and also that the City should receive more benefit. Ruebling asked what the average lot size would be in the heavily wooded areas. Blake replied that the lots would be above the minimum size requirement. Ruebling then asked if R1-22 zoning could be considered in the heavily wooded area. Franzen replied that the overall average lot size would be between R1-13.5 and R1-22 zoning requirements. Putnam believed that the lots in the wooded area were presently close to reaching R1-22 zoning. Franzen stated that the proponent had spent a lot of time on the project and believed that this was the best possible plan for the site. Franzen recommended that the overall project be approved with the condition that the developer look at specific areas for specific changes. Anderson asked Franzen if he was recommending the removal of one lot in the wooded area. Franzen replied that an • alternative would be to remove one lot and move the road to the south. Ruebling stated that he would be comfortable forwarding the plan to the City Council with the recommendation that R1-22 zoning be considered for the wooded area. Hallett asked if Dell Road could be moved to save additional trees. Franzen replied that the location had been determined to try to equalize the assessments. The final grade had not been determined at this time. Dodge believed that the City should also make an effort to save additional trees. MOTION• Dodge moved, seconded by Ruebling to continue the public hearing to the January 8, 1990, Planning Commission meeting, returning the plans to the proponent for revisions per the Staff Report dated November 9, and December 11, 1989, (and additional revisions from Commissioners from this meeting) . Anderson stated that Staff had indicated that significant changes to the plan were not necessary. • Bauer was concerned about what issues would come up for discussion if the item were continued again. Bauer noted Planning Commission Minutes 7 December 11, 1989 • that at the last meeting the discussion had centered on requests for changes in the northeast corner and at this meeting the Commission was asking for revision in the area to the south of the pond, which had not been addressed previously. Ruebling stated that the would support the Staff recommendation. Franzen stated that to move a lot line or a building pad location would not change the tree loss situation significantly. He added that Staff would not recommend the removal of one lot or the shift in the road if only a few trees would be saved. Up to 500 could be saved with this site plan change. Bye stated that the actual caliper inches might not change significantly, but possibly a major stand of trees could be saved with some shifting of the plan. Bye believed that alternatives should be considered. Ruebling asked Franzen if he was comfortable sending the plan on to the City Council. Franzen replied that Staff would continue to work with the proponent. Motion to continue failed 3-4-0. MOTION 1• Ruebling moved, seconded by Anderson to close the public hearing. Motion carried 7-0-0. MOTION 2• Ruebling moved, seconded by Anderson to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Tandem Properties 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, for the Jamestown Development, based on plans dated December 5 and 6, 1989, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated November 11 and December 8, 1989, with the recommendation that the Site Plan be changed to accommodate R1-22 zoning within the wooded area southwest of the pond to the south property line. Bauer asked if the road to the north of the pond would be moved. Ostenson replied no. Motion carried 5-2-0. Hallett and Dodge voted "NO". • MOTION 3: Planning Commission Minutes 8 December 11, 1989 • Ruebling moved, seconded by Anderson to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Tandem Properties for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 60.79 acres for the Jamestown Development, based on plans dated December 5 and 6, 1989, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated November 11 and December 8, 1989, with the recommendation that the Site Plan be changed to accommodate R1-22 zoning within the wooded area southwest of the pond to the south property line. Motion carried 5- 2-0. Hallett and Dodge voted "NO". MOTION 4• Ruebling moved, seconded by Anderson to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Tandem Properties for Planned Unit Development District Review on 60.79 acres, with waivers, Site Plan Review and Zoning District Change from Rural and R1-22 to RM-6.5 on 12.16 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13 .5 and R1-22 on 37. 65 acres, for the Jamestown Development, based on plans dated December 5 and 6, 1989, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated November 11 and December 8, 1989, with the recommendation that the Site Plan be changed to accommodate R1-22 zoning within the wooded area southwest of the pond to the south property • line. Motion carried 5-2-0. Hallett and Dodge voted "NO". MOTION 5: Ruebling moved, seconded by Anderson to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Tandem Properties for Preliminary Plat of 60.79 acres into 17 townhouse lots, 60 single family lots, two outlots, and road right- of-way for the Jamestown Development, based on plans dated based on plans dated December 5 and 6, 1989, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated November 11 and December 8, 1989, with the recommendation that the Site Plan be changed to accommodate R1-22 zoning within the wooded area southwest of the pond to the south property line and that the number of lots should not exceed 60 to accommodate the R1-22 zoning. Motion carried 5-2-0. Hallett and Dodge voted "NO". Hallett stated that his "NO" vote on the motions were not in opposition to what the proponent was trying to accomplish, but rather opposition to sending a plan to the City Council with changes which would not be seen by the Planning Commission. Hallett believed that the proponent had enough time to return to the Planning Commission with the requested revisions prior to going to the City Council without producing an adverse affect on the project. Planning Commission Minutes 9 December 11, 1989 . Dodge concurred with Commissioner Hallett and added that she was uncomfortable not seeing the revisions which would be made before review by the City Council. Ruebling stated that he hoped the proponent would work in good faith with Staff to make the necessary revisions. Putnam stated that they would keep the Planning Commission advised of changes. Ostenson addressed the conditions of the 2nd Reading. Franzen stated that the proponent requested the same rights as the other developers in the Southwest Area related to the issuance of a maximum of 10 building permits. MOTION 6• Ruebling moved, seconded by Anderson to recommend to the City Council approval of the City-initiated request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment for relocation of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) Line to include an additional 7 acres of property for a mixed use development to be known as Jamestown, based on plans dated December 5 and 6, 1989, subject to the recommendations of the Staff • Reports dated November 11 and December 8, 1989, with the recommendation that the Site Plan be changed to accommodate R1-22 zoning within the wooded area southwest of the pond to the south property line. Motion carried 6- 1-0. Hallett voted "NO". D. FARBER ADDITION, by Roger Farber. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-22 on 3 .7 acres with variances for road frontage to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, and Preliminary Plat of 7. 6 acres into 3 single family lots, and one outlot. Location: 6525 Rowland Road. A continued public hearing. Franzen reported that the plans had been revised to provide R1-22 zoning, the request for a cross-access easement had been removed, and Outlot A was proposed to be donated to the City if access could not be provided from the east. Frank Cardarelle, representing the proponent, was available for questions. Franzen noted that the variances were necessary for the Flag lots. Brett Boos, owner of the lot located at 6508 Cherokee • Trail, stated that he was concerned that the issue of a road going across the wetland area would be brought up at a later time and a road would be constructed across the Planning Commission Minutes 10 December 11, 1989 • back of his property. Franzen replied that portions of the Bodin property was developable; however, access may not be available into the area. Franzen did not believe that the developer could be expected to guarantee that a road would not be constructed. Boos stated that he was not looking for a guarantee. He was concerned about a road being constructed across the wetland. Franzen replied that the proponent had submitted a letter to the City stating that if access was not available through the Bodin property that Outlot A would be dedicated. Anderson believed that a time limit should be set. Bye stated that if the proponent were to develop Outlot A the proposal would be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council and the neighbors would be notified at that time. Ed Sieber, 11792 Dunhill Road, was concerned about the additional traffic on Rowland Road. He stated that 3 driveway would access onto Rowland Road in a very short distance. He was concerned because of the hilly topography of the road. Sieber was also concerned about the affect of this development on the overall drainage of the area. Sieber questioned if the drainage area would be severely reduced and how much of the wetlands would be consumed. Sieber noted that the holding pond and the drainage pattern were currently blocked. Scott Connell, 11732 Boulder Bay Road, stated that he was pleased to see the change in zoning to R1-22. He was concerned about the access to the Outlot A and would like to see further protection for the neighbors; however, if the Outlot A were to be dedicated to the City it would compensate the City for the allowance of the variances. Franzen stated that the sight distance currently was poor and no development would be allowed until Rowland Road was upgraded. He said that the wetland area would not be filled in with this plan. Franzen believed that the proposal would rectify some of the overall drainage problems in the area. Franzen noted that the new homes would be constructed at an elevation to avoid damage from a 100-year storm. Ruebling stated that the proposal currently had eliminated the request for a cross-access easement. Ruebling questioned how the City would gain access to the property if the land was dedicated. Cardarelle replied that the City did have access for sewer and water and had the right to maintain these utilities. Franzen added that standard . drainage and utility easements were provided. Planning Commission Minutes 11 December 11, 1989 is Sieber stated that since the 1987 storm the proposed park had been filled up and the water problem would be worse with this development. Sieber believed that a comprehensive drainage study for the area should be conducted. Bye stated that a drainage plan was part of the Staff Recommendations. Cardarelle stated that the sight distance had been studied and was adequate. He said that the extension of the sewer would be done when the feasibility study was completed. The drainage for the area would not be altered by the proposed development. Cardarelle believed that everything possible had been done to save the hills and the trees in the area. Hallett asked George Tangen if he was pleased with the revised plan. Tangen replied that he was pleased with the proposed revisions. MOTION 1• Sandstad moved, seconded by Anderson to close the public hearing. Motion carried 7-0-0. MOTION 2• Sandstad moved, seconded by Anderson to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Roger Farber for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-22 on 3.7 acres, with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, for the Farber Addition, based on plans dated November 11, 1989, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated November 9, 1989. Motion carried 6-1-0. Bauer voted "NO" . Bauer believed that the development was premature especially with remaining neighborhood opposition regarding the Outlot. Hallett stated that he would like to have the drainage in the area reviewed further. Franzen replied that he would check into the drainage issue. MOTION 3: Sandstad moved, seconded by Anderson to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Roger Farber for Preliminary Plat of 7.6 acres into three single family lots and one outlot, to be known as the Farber Addition, based on plans dated November 8, 1989, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated November 9, 1989. Motion carried 6-1-0. Bauer voted "NO". Planning Commission Minutes 12 December 11, 1989 . E. INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL, PHASE II, by International School of Minnesota, Inc. Request for Zoning District Amendment with the Public Zoning District on approximately 38 acres, Site Plan Review 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 continued public hearing. Franzen reported that the proponent had revised the plans to reflect that the east wall would be covered with stucco and painted to match the brick of the buildings. Additional screening would be provided with six 10-foot spruce trees. Franzen stated that Staff recommended approval of the proposal based on the recommendations outlined in the Staff Report dated December 8, 1989. Tracy Whitehead, representing the proponent, requested that the wording in recommendation ##3 of the Staff Report be changed to read "prior to occupancy permit issuance for Phase II" in lieu of "building permit". Franzen stated that he would be comfortable with the change. Bill McHale, 12237 Chadwich Lane, stated that he would like to see a time limit set for compliance. McHale noted that the trees presented in the sketch were not to scale . and would not provide the screening as viewed in the sketch. McHale requested that prior to issuance of any further building permits for the school that the wall be completed in brick as originally agreed upon. McHale stated that the provision of painted stucco was still not in accordance with the original plan approved. McHale added that the proponent had agreed at the last meeting that when the gym was expanded brick would be provided on this wall and he requested that this become part of the record. Whitehead stated that it was her understanding that the provision of stucco would meet City Code and, therefore, the brick was not necessary. McHale replied that even though stucco would meet City Code it did not meet the provisions of the original building permit issued to the school, which called for a decorative block. Bye stated that the wall would meet City Code. Ruebling asked if the wall were brought to within the City Code requirements if the City could request that it be constructed as originally proposed. Can the City request that when the gym is expanded that the wall be constructed of brick? Franzen replied that when the gym was expanded the wall would probably be constructed of brick; however, . at this time the wall does meet City Code with 75% of the wall consisting of priming material and 25% consisting of accent material, which would be the stucco. Planning Commission Minutes 13 December 11, 1989 • McHale stated that the wall was to temporary and did not understand why the City would have a problem requesting that the wall be constructed as originally agreed upon. Bauer believed that the issue was not that the wall was to be temporary, but that the wall did not comply with City Code and now with the proposed plan it would comply with City Code. McHale stated that the wall was still not in compliance with the original building permit. McHale added that the neighbors would like to see the brick which had originally been promised in a reasonable amount of time. Bye requested that the minutes of these proceedings be attached to any further projects related to the school. Ruebling requested that the City Attorney investigate this issue and see if the City has the authority to request that brick be used. Franzen replied that he would check into this issue with the City Attorney's office. Bye noted that the main issue raised at the last meeting • was the non-compliance with Code, which would now be accomplish and there would also be the addition of landscaping to screen the wall. Hallett asked if the Planning Commission should make a formal recommendation to support the trail system. Hallett supported the recommendations in the memo from Bob Lambert. Anderson concurred. MOTION 1• Dodge moved, seconded by Bauer to close the public hearing. Motion carried 7-0-0. MOTION 2• Dodge moved, seconded by Bauer to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of International School of Minnesota, Inc. , for Site Plan Review within the Public Zoning District on approximately 38 acres for construction of a 27, 640 square foot school addition, based on plans dated November 24, 1989, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated November 24, 1989. Motion carried 7-0-0. MOTION 3• Hallett moved, seconded by Anderson to support the recommendations of Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Planning Commission Minutes 14 December 11, 1989 • Resources Department, Bob Lambert related to the trail system. Motion carried 7-0-0. MOTION 4• Bauer moved, seconded by Ruebling that in light of the neighborhood response on the initial building, the City Attorney's office review prior to City Council review of this item and prior to any further expansion at the International School if the City can require compliance with the original building permit. Motion carried 7-0-0. F. 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 16,971 square foot multi-story office building. Location: North of Eden Road, west of the Eden Prairie Food Fare Building. A continued public hearing. Steve Huh, representing the proponent, presented the revised plans which showed the following changes: 1. The retaining walls were eliminated. 2. Evergreen trees were changed to bushes. • 3. Willows replaced the evergreens. 4. A common access easement would not be provided. 5. The parking garage was eliminated. Uram reported that Staff was comfortable with the revised plan as proposed. He added that the proponent did not want to build the trail system but would provide the City with trail easements. Uram stated that related to the parking stalls, Staff would not support a variance for increased building size. Huh stated the building was 1,760 square feet less than originally proposed. Uram noted that recommendation 1-A,B, and C should be removed from the Staff Report. These items had been accomplished. Bye asked if the construction of a trail system was part of the Staff recommendations at this time. Uram replied yes. Sandstad asked if there would be another way to accomplish the construction of a trail. Uram replied that the City could construct the trail and then assess the owner. • Ruebling asked if the newly proposed screening would be adequate for the winter months. Uram replied that Staff was comfortable with the screening as proposed. Planning Commission Minutes 15 December 11, 1989 Bauer asked the proponent if they understood the square footage requirement. Huh replied yes. MOTION 1• Dodge moved, seconded by Bauer to close the public hearing. Motion carried 7-0-0. MOTION 2: Dodge moved, seconded by Anderson to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Auburn Inns, Inc. 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, and Site Plan Review on 1.24 acres for construction of a 16,971 square foot multi-story office building, based on plans dated December 11, 1989, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated November 24, 1989, and recommendations of the Commission at the meeting of December 11, 1989. Motion carried 7-0-0. V. OLD BUSINESS VI. NEW BUSINESS • Hallett asked if the City could request additional screening for the Water Products Company. He added that since Highway 5 had been lowered in elevation the facility was highly visible. Bye suggested that MnDOT be requested to look at this item. Franzen stated that he would look into seeing what could be done. VII. PLANNER'S REPORT VIII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION• Anderson moved, seconded by Sandstad to adjourn the meeting at 10:25 PM. Motion carried 7-0-0.