Loading...
Planning Commission - 11/28/1988 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, November 28, 1988 7:30 p.m. COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman Julianne Bye, Richard Anderson, Christine Dodge, Doug Fell , Robert Hallett, Charles Ruebling, Ed Schuck STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Don Uram, Assistant Planner; Sue Anderson, 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. STARVIEW TERRACE, by Patrick Bauer. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 15.62 acres, Preliminary Plat of 15.62 acres into 26 single family lots, two outlots, and road right-of-way for construction of a single family development. Location: West side of Starring Lake, west of Mitchell road. A continued public hearing. (7:50) B. ZACHMAN BROTHERS 1ST ADDITION, by Zachman Development Corporation. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 5 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural and RM-6.5 to R1-9.5 on 5 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Preliminary Plat of 5 acres into 17 single family lots, and road right-of-way. Location: The southwest corner of Franlo Road and Preserve Boulevard. A continued public hearing. (8:20) C. ELIM SHORES, by Brauer & Associates. Request for a Zoning District Amendment within the RM-2.5 Zoning District on 8.36 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Preliminary Plat of 8.36 acres into 3 lots for construction of a 64-unit senior housing development. Location: West of County Road #4, east of Mitchell Lake. A continued public hearing. (8:50) D. MARCUS DEVELOPMENT, by Marcus Corporation. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Reg-Ser on 0.65 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Preliminary Plat of 1.61 acres into 2 lots and 1 outlot, for construction of a 3,300 square foot commercial building. Location: South of Prairie Center Drive, east of Highway #169, west of Joiner Way. A public hearing. Agenda November 28, 1988 Page Two (9:20) E. ARBY'S, by Homart Development Company. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural and Public to C-Reg-Ser on 3.4 acres, Preliminary Plat of 3.4 acres into 2 lots for construction of a commercial restaurant. Location: East of Franlo Road, north of Prairie Center Drive, within the Eden Prairie Center property. A public hearing. V. OLD BUSINESS Site Plan Review. VI. NEW BUSINESS Eden Prairie High School expansion. VII. PLANNER'S REPORT VIII. ADJOURNMENT PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES MONDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 1988 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Julianne Bye, Richard Anderson, Christine Dodge, Robert Hallett, Charles Ruebling, Ed Schuck COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Doug Fell 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 MOTION: Schuck moved, seconded by Ruebling to approve the Agenda as published. Motion carried 4-0-0 . II . MEMBERS REPORTS III . MINUTES IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. STARVIEW TERRACE, by Patrick Bauer . Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13 .5 on 15.62 acres, Preliminary Plat of 15. 62 acres into 26 single family lots, two outlots, and road right-of-way for construction of a single family development . Location: West side of Starring Lake, west of Mitchell road. A continued public hearing. Frank Cardarelle, representing the proponent, stated that the major changes to the plan were; 1) the building pad sizes were increased to 801 , 2) the roadways were modified to adapt to the topography of the land, 3) 4 lots were eliminated, reducing the number of lots from 30 to 26, and 4 ) the grading plans were altered to reduce the amount of cut from 30 ' to 10 ' for the center portion of the project. Uram reported that the significant change in the grading plan had reduced the cut for the central portion of the property from 30 ' to 101 , which also reduced the amount of footage the face of the hill would be moved back from 250 ' to approximately 60 ' to 1401 . Uram said the relocation of Planning Commission Minutes 2 November 28, 1988 the roads had increased the depths of the lots adjacent to Mitchell Road and along the western property line . Uram stated that Staff recommended approval of the plan based on the Staff Report dated November 25, 1988 . Ruebling asked what the zoning was for the property to the west . Dram replied R1-22 . David Kramer, 9010 Mitchell Road, stated that he wished to make the Planning Commission aware that a small triangle of his property could possibly be involved in this project . Kramer said that he was working with the developer on a possible exchange of property. MOTION 1• Schuck moved, seconded by Anderson to close the public hearing. Motion carried 4-0-0 . MOTION 2: Schuck moved, seconded by Anderson to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Patrick Bauer for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13. 5 on 15. 62 acres for Starview Terrace, based on revised plans dated • November 17, 1988, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated November 25, 1988 . Motion carried 4-0- 0. MOTION 3• Schuck moved, seconded by Anderson to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Patrick Bauer for Preliminary Plat of 15. 62 acres into 26 single family lots, two outlots, and road right-of-way for Starview Terrace, based on revised plans dated November 17, 1988, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated November 25, 1988 . Motion carried 4-0-0 . Cardarelle asked when the proposal could be presented to the City Council. Uram replied it would appear on the City Council 's December 20, 1988 Agenda . B. ZACHMAN BROTHERS 1ST ADDI,TI.ON, by Zachman Development Corporation. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 5 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural and RM-6 . 5 to R1-9 . 5 on 5 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Preliminary Plat of 5 acres into 17 single family lots, and road right-of-way. Location: The southwest corner of Franlo Road and Preserve Boulevard . A continued public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes 3 November 28, 1988 Peter Knaeble, Ron Krueger & Associates, presented the revised plans for the proponent. . Knaeble stated that the original plan had consisted of 18 lots with 10 of the lots being for cluster homes. He said the revised plan provided 17 single-family lots, no cluster homes, and a cul-de-sac ratifier than a loop road system. Knaeble believed that the revised plan addressed the concerns of the Planning Commission presented at the October 24, 1988 meeting; transition, density, street layout, drainage, and the use of cluster homes . He said the revised plan placed the smaller lots along Preserve Boulevard, allowing for the larger lots to abut the properties of the existing homes . Knaeble stated the revised plan would provide a density of 3. 4 units per acres. Knaeble added that the drainage area had been reduced from approximately 40 acres to 4 acres by redirecting the storm water run-off to flow along Preserve Boulevard; however, additional fill was required to raise the cul-de-sac to promote the drainage flow to Preserve Boulevard . Knaeble noted that a neighborhood meeting had been held as suggested by the Planning Commission at the October 24, 1988 meeting. Anderson commented that the Planning Commission had indicated that 14 to 15 lots would be acceptable . Uram reported that Staff believed the revised plan reflected an improvement in the transition to the single- family homes. He said the Engineering Department believed the current proposal would reduce the chance of flooding along the rear property lines . Uram added that the proponent had significantly altered the plan to provide for the solution of the drainage issues . Uram stated that the current plan would require 16 variances; however, if Lot 14 were removed the variances required would be reduced to 5 and the transition enhanced. Anderson asked if a sidewalk would be required. Uram replied that sidewalks currently existed along Franlo Road and Preserve Boulevard; therefore, sidewalks were not required. Dean Malotky, 8687 Kathryn Court, stated that he would have preferred a lower density; however, in concept he favored the revised plan and supported the Staff 's recommendations . Malotky said he was pleased to see the drainage issue being addressed . Jim Durda, 8746 Grier Lane, stated that he was 90% comfortable with the project. He believed the transition from the multiple family homes to the north was still not adequate. Durda added he would like to see fewer of the smaller lots and would prefer the larger lots places along Preserve Boulevard. x Planning Commission Minutes 4 November 28, 1988 Schuck asked Uram for Clarification on the tree replacement requirement for the proposal, it appears that less trees were being taken out with the revised plan, yet the amount of trees required to be replaced had increased. Uram replied based on Staff 's calculations more trees were being removed with the revised plan. Schuck supported the Staff recommendations, specifically to remove Lot 14 and possibly one more lot. Ruebling believed the transition toward the west side of the project was important. He added that the existing home seemed to be hindering the transition to the R1-13 . 5 area. Ruebling believed that Lots 14 and 15 were too small . He questioned what circumstances could justify the remaining 5 variances if Lot 14 were removed. Uram reported the variances would be required for Lots 1, 2, and 3. He concurred with Ruebling that the existing home was a problem in providing adequate transition and offered the following alternatives; eliminate Lot 5 or 6, or completely shift the entire subdivision. Uram pointed out that one important thing to consider was the storm sewer line, which was located on the lot line between Lot 10 and 11, which best served the City in its present location. Knaeble concurred that it was essential for the lot line to remain in the present location between Lots 10 and 11. Ruebling asked Uram if the removal of Lot 3 would eliminate the need for the remaining 5 variances. Uram replied yes . Uram stated that the important question for the Planning Commission to consider was is this a transitional development. Uram said Staff did not have a problem with the variances requested for the 3 lots located in the northern portion zoned RM-6. 5. He commented that with the RM-6 . 5 zoning duplexes could be construction on the property. Uram suggested the following to provide adequate transition for the southwest corner; remove Lots 5 and 6, add the square footage to the remaining lots, and move Lot 11 to where Lot 10 was currently located . He said this solution would place the storm sewer between Lots 11 and 12, which would eliminate the need for 11 of the 16 variances . Ruebling believed this solution would provide a better transition. Anderson supported this solution and believed this would be closer to the plan the Planning Commission originally had in mind. 40 Ruebling supported a plan to remove Lot 6, rotate the lots, and maintain the Swale between two lots . Planning Commission Minutes 5 November 28, 1988 . Anderson supported removing both Lets 5 and G . Uram stated that Lot 14 had a 57 ' frontage and Lots 5 and 6 both had 75 ' frontages; therefore, the variances could be eliminated by removing either Lot 5 or 6 instead of Lot 14 and still maintain the swale. Dodge arrived at 7 : 50 PM. Knaeble stated the revised plan reduced the development by one lot from the original plan, while the additional grading costs to improve the drainage were estimate to be between $30,000 and $40, 000 . Knaeble added the additional grading was being done to correct an existing drainage problem. He noted that by eliminating one or two of the larger lots this would become a R1-13 . 5 development, which would not provide a transition to the higher density. Bye stated that she would like to see the revised plan reduced by one more lot. Zachman stated that he had met with the neighbors on three separate occasions and they were satisfied with the revised plan. He added the storm sewer correction was going to increase the costs of the development by approximately $50,000 . Zachman said the project could not survive if two additional lots had to be removed . Uram summarized by stating the main issue was transition to the southwest corner . He said there were two possible solutions for the Planning Commission to consider; 1 ) remove lot 5 or 6, spread the square footage throughout the property and maintain the swale or, 2) remove Lot 14, if the Planning Commission believed the transition was acceptable . Bye stated that she understood the rationale for the variance on Lots 1, 2, and 3 and concurred with Staff 's recommendations to remove one lot. Bye asked if the Planning Commission would be comfortable not specifying which lot needed to be removed. Ruebling believed that the removal of Lot 5 or 6 was more appropriate than Lot 14 . He said Lot 4 could be moved to the south, move Lot 7 to the north, and still maintain the swale. Anderson concurred with Ruebling. MOTION 1• Ruebling moved, seconded by Schuck to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0-0 . • Planning Commission Minutes 6 November 28, 1988 MOTION 2: Ruebling moved, seconded by Schuck to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Zachman Development Corporation for a Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on five acres for Zachman Brothers 1st Addition, based on revised plans dated November 18, 1988, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated November 25, 1988 with the change on Page 4, Alternate 1 to read: Remove Lot 5 or 6 and distribute the frontage and square footage over the remaining portions of the lot; on the east side of the cul-de-sac, thereby eliminating 11 of the 16 variances being requested . Motion carried 4-0- 1. Dodge abstained. MOTION 3: Ruebling moved, seconded by Schuck to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Zachman Development Corporation for Zoning District Change from Rural and RM-6 . 5 to R1-9 . 5 on five acres, with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals for Zachman Brothers 1st Addition, based on revised plans dated November 18, 1988, subject to the recommendations of the • Staff Report dated November 25, 1988 with the change on Page 4, Alternate 1 to read: Remove Lot 5 or 6 and distribute the frontage and square footage over the remaining portions of the lots on the east side of the cul-de-sac, thereby eliminating 11 of the 16 variances being requested. Motion carried 4-0-1. Dodge abstained. MOTION 4 • Ruebling moved, seconded by Schuck to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Zachman Development Corporation of Preliminary Plat of five acres into 16 single family lots and road right-of-way for Zachman Brothers 1st Addition, based on revised plans dated November 18, 1988, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated November 25, 1988 with the change on Page 4, Alternate 1 to read : Remove Lot 5 or 6 and distribute the frontage and square footage over the remaining portions of the lots on the east side of the cul-de-sac, thereby eliminating 11 of the 16 variances being requested. Motion carried 4-0-1 . Dodge abstained. C. EL IM SHORES, by Brauer & Associates. Request for a Zoning District Amendment within the RM-2 . 5 Zoning District on 8 . 36 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Preliminary Plat of 8 . 36 acres into 3 lots for construction of a 64-unit senior housing development. Location: West of County Road 44, east of Mitchell Lake . A continued public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes 7 November 28, 1988 . Hallett arrived 8 : 10 PM. George Watson, representing the proponent, stated that at the last meeting the Planning Commission had voiced a concern regarding the height of the building. Watson said the proponent had reviewed the plan from both an architectural and financial perspective and presented the revised plan which depicted the north, east and south .ides of the building at an elevation of 37 ' and the lakeshore side with an elevation of 471 . He added that the building had been downsized to 61 units; however, the amount of community space available had still not been determined. He said the proponent would like to move the activity rooms, barber shop, nutrition center, and craft room✓ to a lower level with a walkout. Watson stated that if the proposed 47 ' elevation along the lakeshore was not acceptable the proponent was prepared to proceed with a 37 ' elevation for all sides, but it would be difficult to service the residents of the units . Franzen noted that Staff report had indicated 53 units and asked Watson to clarify the current proposal for 61 units . Watson replied the mix of units had been changed to increase the number of one bedroom units and reduced the number of two bedroom units. Franzen asked Watson how much of the lower level would be exposed . Watson replied approximately 80% would be exposed . Franzen reported that Staff recommended approval of the project based on the Staff Report and recommendations dated November 25, 1988 . He said additional berming would be required to screen the building from the adjacent single-family homes . Franzen stated that the residents across the lake were concerned about the view. He believed the question for the Planning Commission to consider was how the 47 ' height impacts the lakeshore . Ruebling stated that he was concerned about the size of the building and its massive appearance . He added that he was also concerned about the functionality of the building if the building size was reduced further . Ruebling believed that if a walkout was approved it would be important to screen a walkout to help reduce the effect on residents across the lake . Bye concurred that if the walkout were permitted, screening would be necessary. Franzen asked Watson how much vegetation was being removed along the lakeshore . Watson replied that the oaks would be kept along with a grove of elms and boxelder . He added • that additional plantings of trees and shrubs were planned for screening. Watson said the entire length of the building could not be screened, but believed the berms Planning Commission Minutes 8 November 28, 1988 • could be overlapped . Bye suggested creating a park setting for the residents along the lakeshore side, using some pines to provide year round screening. Franzen suggested natural plantings, progressing from smaller to larger . Watson said the proponent could expand on the current screening plan. He believed the current plan provided significant plant material . Watson added that the proponent did not want a complete forest along the lakeshore because the proponent would like the residents to be able to view the lake . Schuck suggested a gradual terrace effect, using shrubs, evergreens, and some larger trees . Anderson stated that he was more comfortable with the revised heights, but was still concerned about the size of the building being adjacent to single-family homes . Dodge stated she would like to see a 37-foot height on -all sides of the building. Dodge did not believe that berming and screening could soften the appearance of the building. Ruebling believed the walkout was necessary to provide the community space which enhanced the facility. Hallett believed the revised plan was an improvement over • the original proposal . He commented that residents were not present to voice an opinion pro or con and asked Franzen if notices had been- sent out. Franzen replied this was a continued Public Hearing and new notices had not been sent out . Hallett believed the community needed this type of facility and would support the plan with the additional berming and screening. MOTION 1• Ruebling moved, seconded by Schuck to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0-0. MOTION 2 ' Ruebling moved, seconded by Schuck to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Elim Homes, Inc . , for Zoning District Amendment within the RM-2 . 5 Zoning District on 8 . 36 acres, with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, for Elim Shores, based on plans dated October 26, 1988, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated November 10, 1988 with the addition to recommendation 1 .A, the landscaping plan be revised to provide for screening of the walkout level on the lakeshore side . Motion carried 5-1-0 . (Dodge voted "NO" , Dodge wanted to see a 37-foot elevation on all sides . Dodge added she hoped a negative vote would send a message to the City Council that there was concern at the Planning Commission level . ) Planning Commission Minutes 9 November 28, 1988 MOTION 3: Ruebling moved, seconded by Schuck to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Elim Homes, Inc. , for Preliminary Plat approval for 8. 36 acres into three lots for construction of a 61-unit senior housing development to be know as E1im Shores, based on plans dated October 26, 1988, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated November 10, 1988, with the addition to recommendation 1.A, the landscaping plan be revised to provide for screening of the walkout level on the lakeshore side . Motion carried 5-1-0 . Dodge voted "Na 11 D. MARCUS DEVELOPMENT., by Marcus Corporation. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Reg-Ser on 0 . 65 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Hoard of Appeals, Preliminary Plat of 1.61 acres into 2 lots and 1 outlot, for construction of a 3,300 square foot commercial building. Location: South of Prairie Center Drive, east of Highway #169, west of Joiner Way. A public hearing. Mark Senn, representing the proponent, presented the revised plan with the following changes; the square footage of the building had been reduced, the parking . situation dealt with, the Credit Union had been eliminated from the site, and the building redesigned for a single drive-thru use by a photo processing facility. Senn stated the 3,300 square foot building was currently designed for 2 to 3 tenants, with the main tenant being the photo finishing facility. He added that no leases had been signed at this time. Uram reported that the revised proposal was designed to take care of the existing parking problem with Youngstedt 's . He added that 12 parking stalls would be provided along the south side of the building; 4 used for the retail building and 8 used for Youngstedt's . Uram stated that the Credit Union drive-thru had been eliminated. Uram rioted that the proposal met the C- Regional Service Zoning District requirements with the exception of a variance required for the common driveway along the northern property line. Uram reported that Staff wished to withdraw the request for the removal of the drive-thru window. He added the recommendation for the removal of the drive-thru window had been based on the lack of a specific tenant; however, the proponent has indicated that Proex was still considering a lease . Uram noted the plan had been approved by the Engineering Department for a drive-thru window with a stacking distance of two cars . Uram suggested that a drive-thru window only be allowed for a photo finishing facility or a similar use facility and the Planning Commission Minutes 10 November 28, 1988 stacking distance be limited to two cars . He added these restriction could be written into the Developers Agreement . Bye asked Uram if this would assure the City control over the drive-thru window. Uram replied yes. Ruebl ing asked if the recommendation 1 .B would be changed to reflect the limits of the drive-thru. Uram replied yes. Ruebling asked Uram if Staff was comfortable with the architecture of the facility. Uram replied the proponent was required to submit building material samples prior to review by the City Council and believed the architecture would blend well with Youngstedt's, Rocky Rococo, and the new Lariat Center. Hallett asked Uram if adequate screening would be provided for the parking spaces along Highway 169 . Uram replied there would be a 6 ' berm and plantings . MOTION 1: Dodge moved, seconded by Schuck to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0-0. MOTION 2 • • Dodge moved, seconded by Schuck to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Marcus Corporation for Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Reg-Ser on 0 . 65 acres, with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, for construction of a 3,300 sq. ft. commercial building, based on revised plans dated November 11, 1988, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated November 25, 1988 to include the revised recommendation 1.B which is to read, " A drive-thru window to be restricted to a photo-finishing facility or a similar operation with a stacking distance limited to 2 cars . " Motion carried 6-0-0 . MOTION 3 . Dodge moved, seconded by Schuck to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Marcus Corporation for Preliminary Plat of 1. 61 acres into two lots and one outlot for construction of a 3,300 sq. ft. commercial building, based on revised plans dated November 11, 1988, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated November 25, 1988 to include the revised recommendation 'l .B which is to read, " A drive-thru window to be restricted to a photo-finishing facility or a similar operation with a stacking distance limited to 2 cars . " . Motion carried 6-0-0 . Planning Commission Minutes 11 November 28, 1988 • F, ARn I B by Ho'-ffiart Development company. }ieql7t_•.Lt for zoning District Change from Rural and Public to C-Reg-Ser on 3 . 4 acres, Preliminary Plat of 3 . 4 acres into 2 lots for construction of a commercial restaurant. Location: East of Franlo Road, north of Prairie Center Drive, within the Eden Prairie Center property. A public hearing. Franzen introduced Greg Tilsch, representing the Horitart Development company and Doug Kennedy, representing the Arby's Corporation. Tilsch stated that 1.15 acres of the property would be developed as an Arby's Restaurant, with the remaining 2 . 25 acres to be developed at a later date for restaurant, retail or financial use . Tilsch stated the request was to rezone the entire 3 . 4 acres at this time . He added it was Homart's desire to find appropriate peripheral land uses to compliment the Regional Mall Development . Tilsch noted that the other facilities surrounding the property were currently zoned C-Regional Service . Kennedy stated the front of the Arby's building would face Prairie Center Drive, with traffic entering from the Eden Prairie Center site . He added a drive-thru service would be provide with a 12 car stacking capacity. Kennedy • commented that 50% of the fast-foot business today was provided by the drive-thru window. Kennedy said the plan included 55 parking spaces with 11 spaces designated for employee parking. He said there would be a shared easement with the Homart Development Company to provide the best traffic circulation pattern. Kennedy stated that the dining area would have a seating capacity for 92 customers . Franzen reported initially the main concern of Staff had been traffic generation; however, the study conducted by the BRW indicated approximately 300 trip generations left for the Eden Prairie Center area and Arby's was only anticipated to generate approximately 117 trips . Franzen stated the second concern was access to the site and added the access proposed by Kennedy had been approved by the Engineering Department . Franzen said the original concept plan for the Eden Prairie Center designated this property for future uses or landscape buffer zone. Franzen believed a compromise plan would be to provide the 50 ' landscape strip along Prairie Center Drive plus the narrow end of the property would be landscaped. Franzen said the current plan should be revised to include a 5 ' concrete sidewalk along Franlo Road and Prairie Center Drive, which would be consistent with the other developments in the area. Franzen concluded that Staff recommended approval of the project based on the Staff Report and Recommendations dated November 25, 1988 . Planning commission Minutes 12 November 28, 1988 . Schuck asked Franzen if the lighting plan was consistent with city requirements . Franzen replied the lighting requirement was a maximum 00-foot height with a downcast cut-off laminar light, which was consistent with other commercial development.. Bye asked Franzen for clarification on the location of the sidewalks . Franzen replied the sidewalk would be along Franlo Road and Prairie Center Drive . He added that eventually there would be a sidewalk on both sides of Prairie Center Drive . Ruebling asked Franzen how the sidewalk along Prairie Center Drive would be extended and who would be responsible to put the sidewalk in. Franzen replied the sidewalk would dead-end currently and the City would assess the cost of the sidewalk to the property owner . Ruebling asked how much sidewalk existed ,Tong Prairie Center Drive currently for the interior side of the Shopping center . Franzen replied this proposal would be the start of the sidewalk system. Ruebling asked if now was the time to put this section of sidewalk in if the connecting sections might not be constructed for several years . Franzen replied the City could request the developer to enter into a special assessment agreement to . provide for the future installation of the sidewalk . Franzen noted that Firestone had put the sidewalk in right away. Anderson believed Homart Development Company should install the sidewalk now. Kennedy stated that Arby's was willing to install the sidewalk now, but added it would probably not be used because it would not connect to anything. Kennedy noted the Firestone sidewalk was not shoveled or used to any extent. Anderson believed the shoveling of sidewalks was a Public Safety issue and suggested the Planning Commission recommend the adoption of an ordinance to require sidewalks to be shoveled to the City Council . Ruebling and Dodge concurred. After further discussion by Commission members the Planning Commission concurred the sidewalk should be constructed now. MOTION 1• Dodge moved, seconded to Schuck to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0-0. MOTION 2: • Dodge moved, seconded to Schuck to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Homart Development Company for Zoning District Change from Rural and Public Planning Commission Minutes 13 November 28, 1988 to C-Reg-Ser on 1.15 acres for construction of a commercial restaurant for Arby's, based on plans dated October 19, 1988, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated November 25, 1988, further, that rezoning from Rural and Public to C-Reg-Ser on the remaining 2 . 25 acres be denied at this time, pending receipt and review by the City of a development plan for the property. Motion carried 6-0-0, MOTION 3: Dodge moved, seconded by Schuck to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Homart Development Company for Preliminary Plat of 3 . 4 acres into two lots for construction of a commercial restaurant for Arby's, based on plans dated October 19, 1988, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated November 25, 1988. Motion carried 6-0-0 . V. OLD. BUSINESS, Site Plan Review. Franzen reported that it was currently not clear to the developers what was required for a Site Plan Review. Franzen • believed the revised draft of the ordinance clarified that a Site Plan Review included the review of; grading, drainage, landscaping, and building architecture . Franzen stated the major change was the revision provided for reviewing amendments proposed at Building Permit issuance. He added that minor changes such as brick color from light brown to dark brown would be approved at Staff level; however, if the developer, for example, had originally proposed a pitch roof and now wished to provide a flat roof the plan would have to be reviewed by the City Council, and the City Council would have the option to return the plan to the Planning Commission for further review. Franzen noted that if the draft was approved by the Planning Commission it would then go to the City Attorney and finally to the City Council for approval . Anderson believed this ordinance would make developers seriously consider making changes to an approved plan. Franzen commented the Staff did not feel comfortable making judgements on changes that should be reviewed by the City Council and the Planning Commission. Anderson asked Franzen if there was a time limit on how long a developer had to proceed with a plan once it had been approved . Franzen replied there was a maximum two year limit on zoning and site plan approvals in the zoning Ordinance • currently. He added the City Council could rescind the zoning back to Rural after the two year limit . Ruebling asked if there were parcels existing now which were past the two year limit. Franzen replied yes. Anderson emphasized the need for Planning Commission Minutes 14 November 28, 1988 Staff to watch the time limit. Ruebling concurred. Franzen replied that with the revision of the Site Plan Ordinance the plan would be required to go through the process again. Ruebling asked Franzen if a professional site planner was certified. Franzen replied a person having a degree in architecture, landscape architecture, or engineering could be considered a professional site planner . Schuck asked if a surveyor would be considered a professional site planner . Franzen replied no. Dodge asked where in the Ordinance was a professional site planner clearly defined. Franzen replied it was not clearly defined and possibly would be best left out of the Ordinance . Ruebling asked if a Land Development Application form currently existed. Franzen replied the form consisted of approximately 20 pages . Franzen added this section of the Ordinance was to provide for exception and extra studies . Ruebling stated the wording in Section 7 should be changed from; in his determination, to read, in the director 's determination. MOTION: • Schuck moved, seconded by Hallett to recommend to the City Council adoption of the site plan ordinance per the Staff Memorandum of November 25, 1988, the above suggestions of the Planning Commission, and the wording change for Section 7 to read: in the director 's determination. Motion carried 6-0-0. VI . NEW BUSINESS Eden Prairie High School expansion. John Hamilton, Cunningham Architects, presented the plan for the Eden Prairie High School expansion with the following; a new visitor entrance, more glass used in the new section, the exterior of the building would be lightened with the use of contrasting brick colors, new layout of the gym to increase the seating from 800 to 2000, a new electronic message center installed at the entrance, and staff offices constructed immediately adjacent to the visitor parking. Hamilton noted an emphasis was being placed on the exterior design to enhance a partnership image between the school and the community. Hamilton believed the school needed to have a friendlier appearance. Hamilton stated the 1st Phase would bid the end of January, the 2nd Phase was scheduled to bid late spring of 1989, and construction completed in the fall of 1990 . Dodge asked if seating would be increased in the auditorium. Hamilton replied the expense to add seating was extremely high and he did not believe warranted at this time. J Planning Commission Minutes 15 November 28, 19$3 Ruebling asked if a concession stand would be provided at the new entrance to the gym. Hamilton replied this would be part of the 2nd Phase and he did not have a definite answer at this time; however, the possibility of a mini concessions stand was being considered. The Planning Commission stressed the need for some type of concession strand being provided at the new entrance. Hallett asked Hamilton how many visitor parking spaces would be provided and were there provisions made to increase the visitor parking area if necessary. Hamilton replied there would be 13 spaces provided initially, which could be increased to 26 if necessary. Hallett commented that residents were not aware that a visitor parking area existed and was concerned that 13 spaces would not be enough if the area was clearly marked. Hamilton stated that two of the major changes to the exterior of the building would be the use of a lighter brick for the new expansion instead of the dark brick and the use of clear glass versus reflective glass previously used. Hallett was concerned about the use of the contrasting brick . Dodge and Anderson concurred. Hamilton stated that the existing brick could not be matched exactly and believed the • appearance of the building needed to be lightened . Dodge believed the proposed increase in the amount of windows would soften the appearance adequately. Hamilton stated the exact color of the second brick had not been determined. Hamilton added the new and old brick colors would appear to be woven together . Bye summarized the Planning Commission's concerns; the visitor parking area be expanded and the second brick color be considered carefully. Hallett supported the use of more glass . Uram asked Hamilton if he could bring in samples of the brick for the Planning Commission's review. Hamilton replied that once the sample brick panels were constructed the Staff and Planning Commission could view them at the site . Hamilton commented he would encourage this and would appreciate the Planning Commission's comments. Hamilton noted that variances were necessary for the message center sign and the building height. VII . PLANNER ' S REPORT VIII . ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 10 : 15 PM.