Planning Commission - 10/26/1981 AGENDA
Eden Prairie Planning Commission
Monday, October 26, 1981
7:30-PM, City Hall
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman William Bearman, Liz
Retterath, Hakon Torjesen, Grant
Sutliff, Virginia Gartner, Robert
Hallett, Dennis Marhula
STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
Sue Schulz, Planning Secretary
Pledge of Allegiance - Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
II. APPROVAL OF OCTOBER 13, 1981 MINUTES
III. MEMBERS REPORTS
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. EDEN GLEN 3RD ADDITION, by Jesco, Inc. Request ,to preliminary
plat 3. 856 acres for construction of a hotel. Located west
of Glen Lane, east of Eden Road, and north of Single Tree Lane.
A public hearing.
B. KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN, by Delaria Kitchens. Request to rezone
from Rural to Regional Commercial and preliminary plat 0.835
acres for a fast food restaurant. Located west of US 169/2125
east of Eden Road, and north of Single Tree Lane. A public
hearing.
C.. CITY WEST, by Richard W. Anderson Inc. Request to amend the
Comprehensive Guide Plan on approximately 40 acres designated
Medium Density Residential to Office, Regional Commercial ;
approval of an 87 acre PUD Concept of Office, Regional Com-
mercial , and Multiple Residential Uses, and approval of an
Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Located east of new
Shady Oak Road (Co. Rd. 61) , and south of Crosstown 62. A
continued public hearing.
0. WOODDALE BAPTIST CHURCH, by Wooddale Baptist Church. Request
for amendment to the City Guide Plan from Residential to Public;
Planned Unit Development Concept approval for church uses; re-
zoning from Rural to Public; and preliminary plat approval .
Variances requested are: 60 foot high sanctuary peak, 75 foot
high landmark, a non-hardsurface parking area for the first
phase, on a total' of 31 acres. Located east of Golden Ridge,
south of Shady Oak Road, and west of US 169/212. A continued
public hearing.
V. OLD BUSINESS
VI. NEW BUSINESS
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
approved
Monday, October 26, 1981 7:30 PM, City Hall
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman William Bearman, Liz Retterath,
Grant Sutliff, Virginia Gartner, Dennis
Marhula, Robert Hallett, Hakon Torjesen (8:52PM)
STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
Sue Schulz, Planning Secretary
I. - APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Gartner moved to approve the agenda as submitted. Sutliff seconded, motion
carried 6-0.
II. APPROVAL OF OCTOBER 13, 1981 MINUTES
This item was moved under Old Business.
III. MEMBERS REPORTS
None
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. EDEN GLEN 3RD ADDITION, by Jesco, Inc. -Request to preliminary
plat 3.856 acres for construction of a hotel . Located west of
Glen Lane, east of Eden Road, and north of Single Tree Lane.
A public hearing.
The Planner bri_dfly reviewed the request and stated that the site cannot be final
platted without rezoning. He then reviewed the staff report dated October 15, 1981.
He also stated that cash park fee of $1400/acre should be added to the report.
Bearman stated that no grading or disturbance to the land should occur at- all --
until final plat approval .
MOTION 1
Sutliff moved to close the public hearing on Eden Glen 3rd Addition preliminary plat.
Gartner seconded, motion carried 6-0.
MOTION 2
Sutliff moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the preliminary plat
dated October 5, 1981 as per the staff report dated October 15, 1981 adding
#5-Subject to cash park fee of $1400/acre; and #6-No grading or disturbance to
the site shall occur at all until final plat approval . Gartner seconded, motion
0 carried 6-0.
.approved
Planning Commission Minutes -2- October 26, 1981
B. KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN, by Delaria Kitchens, Inc. Request to
rezone from Rural to Regional Commercial and preliminary plat
0.835 acres for a fast food restaurant. Located west of US
169/212, east of Eden Road, and north of Single Tree Lane. A
public hearing.
The Planner briefly reviewed the request and stated that the approved Eden Glen
PUD Design Framework Manual should be upheld for the coloring of the cupula.
Sutliff asked the elevation of the cupula. The Planner replied it is 8 ft. which
brings the total building height to approximately 23"ft.
Bearman stated he felt it is important to uphold the approved PUD Design Framework
Manual.
MOTION 1
Retterath moved to close the public hearing on Kentucky Fried Chicken (Eden Glen_
2nd Addition) plat. Sutliff seconded, motion carried 6-0.
MOTION 2
Retterath moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the Kentucky Fried
Chicken rezoning from Rural to C-Reg-Ser as per the plans dated October 5, 1981
and the October 16, 1981 staff report with special emphasis on #6 of the staff
report which reads: That the cupula be a solid dark color. ; and that the original
approved Eden Glen PUD Design Framework Manual be upheld; and the MnDOT letter
dated October 20, 1981. Gartner seconded, motion carried 6-0.
J
C. WOODDRLE BAPTIST _CHURCH, by Wooddale Baptist Church. Request
for amendment to the City Guide Plan from Residential to Public;
Planned Unit Development Concept approval for church uses; re-
zoning from Rural to Public; and preliminary plat approval .
Variances requested are: a 60 foot high sanctuary peak, 75 foot
high landmark, a non-hardsurfaced parking area for the first phase
on a total of 31 acres. Located east of Golden Ridge, south of
Shday Oak Road, and west of US 169/212. A continued public hearing.
The Planner stated that Mr. Fred Hoisington, Brauer & Assoc. , was present to give
the presentation.
Hoisington reviewed the ownership, zoning, slopes, drainage, soils, vegetation,
the concept plan, access, phases of parking, and grading plans. He also reviewed
the variance requests and stated that they would like to park one (1) bus on the
site during the 1st phase construction.
The Planner reviewed the staff report dated October 16, 1981 adding to #2, 150 feet
on the south side of the eastern parking lot be left for soils to consolidate such
as was done on Braun's Industrial Office Building; and noted (#8). that the 2nd phase
parking has a bus storage proposed however, one (1) bus should be allowed to be
• stored on the site prior to the 2nd phase but should be totally screened. He also
stated that cash park fee is not applicable to churches.
Gartner asked about the road vacation. The Planner stated that that is not expected
to occur for a number. of years and stated that when the City vacates a road ROW, it
is returned to the adjoining property owners and stated that this is an item that
the City Attorney would look at.
-—--- --- --ccFp-rvveu
Planning Commission Minutes -3- October 26, 1981
Retterath asked about the tax situation. The Planner replied ail 'the property
would be tax exempt.
Hallett asked what the property in the south of the site would be used for. Hoisington
replied that would be recreational.
Hallett then asked if any land will be dedicated. The Planner stated that that could
be made part of the final platting and stated the Parks, Recreation and Natural
Resources Commission looks at that. I.
Bearman asked if the access on Co. Rd. 61 is necessary. Hoisington replied yes.
Bearman stated he was concerned with the land use and asked the total asphalt
coverage. Hoisington replied 43% coverage.
Bearman expressed his concerns with the asphalt coverage, and the parking. He then
stated he felt that phase 2 parking should be made phase 1 parking with a possible
parking ramp and asked the possibility of this. Hoisington replied that he felt
that a parking ramp is not a compatible use of the land. Bearman stated that he
felt that the parking should be screened as much as possible.and that phase 2
parking should be switched with phase 1 parking and make 470 parking spaces in
that first phase and there would be room for additional parking in the future.
Hoisington stated that there is a problem with getting into the building if that
is done.
• Sutliff asked why the landmark is proposed at such a high elevation. Hoisington
replied for identification, -and that it' an hors part of the walkway to the main
entrance for the church.
Jerry Speilman, 6601 Golden Ridge Drive, stated that the proponent has done a good
job in working with the neighbors and felt that phase 1 parking should be switched
with phase 2 parking. ,
Torjesen asked the Planner to state different ways to finish a parking lot that
will be used 2 or 3 hours a week. The Planner stated that in the long run,
asphalt parking lots are the best.
Sutliff asked if screening on the recreation field is necessary. The Planner
replied no.
Hallett asked if the recreational uses are for the church members only. Pastor
Leith Anderson replied it would be for the community also.
MOTION 1
Gartner moved to close the public hearing on the Wooddale Baptist Church PUD and
preliminary plat request. Retterath seconded, motion carried 7-0.
MOTION 2
Gartner moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the PUD dated 9/21/81
as per the October 16, 1981 staff report adding to #2 of the report, 'accepting
. the south 2 of the eastern parking lot' and adding to #8 'accepting one (1)
and only one bus on phase 1 parking and it must be totally screened. Retterath
seconded.
Unapproved
Planning Commission Minutes -4- October 26, 1981
DISCUSSION
Retterath asked that #9 be added to read ' that some type of land dedication or
cash park fee be investigated for the community use of the facilities'; and #10
that the 470 spaces of parking be built in phase 2 parking area and that phase 1
parking be phase 2. Gartner was o.pposed to #10.
AMENDMENT
Retterath moved to amend the motion to_ include the 470 front (fnitia)
parking be placed where phase 2 parking is located. Sutliff seconded, motion
carried 4-3. Gartner, Hallett and Marhula voted no.
VOTE ON ORIGINAL MOTION WITH AMENDMENT
Motion carried 6-1. Hallett voted no because of the amendment:.
MOTION 3
Gartner moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the rezoning from Rural
to Public based upon the 9/21/81 plans and the October 16, 1981 staff report with
the same additions as in motion 2. Retterath seconded, motion carried 7-0.
MOTION 4
Gartner moved to recommend approval of the preliminary plat dated 9/21/81 as per
the October 16, 1981 staff report with the same additions as in motion 2. Retterath
seconded, motion carried 7-0.
D. CITY WEST, by Richard W. Anderson, Inc. Request to amend the
Comprehensive Guide Plan on approximately 40 acres designated
Medium Density Residential to Office, Regional Commercial ;
approval of an 87 acre PUD Concept of-Office, Regional Comm-
ercial , and Multiple Residential Uses, and approval of an
Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Located east of new Shady
Oak Road (Co. Rd. 61) and south of Crosstown 62. A continued
public hearing.
The Planner reviewed two plans; 1) the ' flip flop' plan; and 2) the Oct. 26, 1981
staff recommendation plan. He then stated that Mr. Peter Jarvis of BRW, Dick
Anderson, ADI, and Scott Anderson of ADI were present.
Jarvis reviewed ADI's letter dated Oct. 21, 1981 and gave a brief presentation.
Sutliff stated he noticed one more section of high density residential designated
on the ' flip flop' plan and asked how many more acres this is. The Planner replied
approximately 12 acres.
The Planner stated that he felt that the most suitable place for residential is
located in the center of the site and stated that the staff recommendation of
October 26 which changes the high density residential on the western portion of
the site next to Shady Oak Road to small office and placing the high density
residential on the eastern portion of the site would be good. He went on to
explain that an example of small office would be the Lake. Ridge Office Park.
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -5= October 26, 1981
Sutliff stated that he felt that Lake Ridge Office Park is too dense.
Bearman asked that the buffer be architectural rather than determined by whether
it is office or residential and stated that he felt that townhouse offices
would be better than residential townhouses.
Torjesen stated he agreed with lower density along Shady Oak Road but that the
offices should extend to the bottom of the site along Shady Oak Road.
Bearman asked that the buffer be arc-httectu.ral ratherthan pl.antings and stated that
he felt that townhouse offices would be better than residential townhouses.
Torjesen stated he agreed with Bearman but felt that the offices should extend to
the bottom of the site along Shady Oak Road.
Sutliff asked the proponent if they are familiar with Lake Ridge Offices. Jarvis
replied yes and stated he felt they would work.
Marhula stated he felt that the plan which was presented at the last meeting was
well screened and felt that the 'small offices should not extend to the bottom of
the site and felt that with them extending, conflicts would arise.
Walter Carpenter, 13000 W. 78th Street, representing Minnesota Tree, felt that
this proposal should be located in the Major Center Area and that this will
be competitive with the MCA.
Torjesen stated that he felt that the Oct. 26, 1981 staff recommendation plan
is increasing the overall density of the project more than the Guide Plan designates.
Jerry Speilman, 6601 Golden Ridge Drive, stated he felt this project should be
located in the Major Center Area and also felt that it would be competitive with
the MCA.
Dick Feerick, 6518 Leesborough Ave. , stated he would like more residential on the
site.
Ken Beersdorf, on behalf of Len Uherka, 6301 Shady Oak Road, stated he was concerned
about the best location for residential - in the center of the site versus on the
outer edges.
Jam Gerecke, 6622 Golden Ridge Drive, stated she supports the Guide Plan as is ,
and felt the plan should be according to it.
Mack Hyde, representing an owner in the MCA, felt that an Environmental Impact
Statement should be prepared for this site. The Planner stated that that decision
is up to local government to decide and stated that the 'EIS process is 'made for
Projects that will have a state wide impact.
John Gertz, The Preserve, stated he agreed with the comments made by Mr. Carpenter
and Feerick.
Marhula asked small office to be defined. The Planner replied 2 story buildings,
or buildings that are 10,000 square feet and under FAR.
Torjesen stated he felt that the staff recommendation plan dated Oct. 26, 1981
will leave the site more dense than what the Guide Plan shows. The Planner
stated that the Guide Plan allows for almost 300,000 sq. ft. of office on the
site and allows 50% FAR coverage which would be 6 acres of buildings on one of
the sites on the western portion of the site that are designated high density
residential. He further stated that the original proposal was 3 times more
dense than the Guide Plan allows and this proposal is now 2 times the density
a l l rr_,,^rl
.approved
Planning Commission Minutes -6- October 26, 1981
Torjesen stated that he would like the' areas on the western portion of the site
to be medium density residential rather than high density residential or office.
Gartner asked how the proponent felt regarding small offices. Jarvis replied
they are comfortable with that idea.
MOTION 1
Hallett moved to close the public hearing on City West PUD. Retterath seconded,
motion carried 7-0.
MOTION 2
Hallett moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the Guide Plan Amendment
dated July 15, 1981 as per the staff recommendation dated October 26, 1981
modified as follows: change the high density residential along Shady Oak Road to
be small office, (i.e. , 2 story building, 10,000 sq. ft. and uinder'office bUillcding)
retaining the high deugity residential piece inn the center of the site. Retterath
s,�conded.
AMENDMENT
Sutliff moved to make the high density residential along Shady Oak Road be made
medium density residential retaining the high density piece in the center of the
site. Torjesen seconded, motion failed, 2-5. Sutliff and Torjesen voted aye.
AMENDMENT"
aTorjesen moved to amend the motion making the Qrs6all -,-,c,office along
Shady Oak Road to be medium density residential retaining the high density
piece in the center of the site. Gartner seconded.
DISCUSSION ON AMENDMENT
Gartner stated she did not feel that medium density residential was appropriate.
Hallett asked if medium density residential is more appropriate for that portion
of the site. The Planner replied he felt that high density residential would be
better than medium density residential .
VOTE ON AMENDMENT
Amendment failed, 1-6.
VOTE ON ORIGINAL MOTION WITHOUT AMENDMENT
Motion carried 7-0.
MOTION 3
Hallett moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the PUD dated July 15,
1981 as per the staff recommendation dated October 26, 1981 with the same changes
as in motion 2. Retterath seconded, motion carried 7-0.
MOTION 4
Hallett moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the Environmental Asses-
sment Worksheet dated Revised Oct. , 1981 subject to revisions as per the October
21, 1981 revised plan and the staff recommendation dated October 26, 1981. Retterath
seconded, motion carried 7-0.
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -7- October 26, 1981
V. OLD BUSINESS
Sutliff moved to approve the minutes with the following additions and/or
changes:
P. 4, under 1st 'Enger paragraph' add on the last line, after 1,000, 'sq. ft. '
P. 5, 2nd line should read 'occuring on Shady Oak Road north of Crosstown. '
P. 9, item C, 2nd motion, 3rd line should read 'investigate the development
agreement of Stewart Sandwiches to connect. .
Marhula seconded, motion carried 7-0.
VI. NEW BUSINESS
Bearman stated that on October 31, 1981 at 10:00 AM, the City Council will
hold a special meeting to discuss Codification and when they will have another
meeting to discuss Codification in depth.
Sutliff asked the status of the Slope Ordinance. The Planner stated that the
City Attorney has drafted an ordinance and that he is studying it now.
Torjesen asked the progress of the Housing Task Force. The Planner replied
nothing has been done yet.
• Hallett stated that he attended the Land Use Workshop on October 23, 1981
and found it to be very interesting and reviewed a couple of points that
he heard.
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
The Planner reviewed the upcoming agenda.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Marhula moved to adjourn the meeting at 11:24 PM. Torjesen seconded, motion
carried 7-0.