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.