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.