Planning Commission - 09/13/1982 AGENDA
Eden Prairie Planning Commission
Monday, September 13, 1982
7:30 PM, City Hall
Pledge of Allegiance - Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
II. APPROVAL OF AUGUST 9, 1982 MINUTES
APPROVAL OF AUGUST 23, 1982 MINUTES
APPROVAL OF JOINT AUGUST 17, 1982 MINUTES
III. MEMBERS REPORTS
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. SHADY OAK AMOCO, by Amoco Oil Company. Request for rezoning
.93 acres from Rural to Hwy-Com and preliminary plat for
construction of a gas station. Located in the southwest
corner of Crosstown 62 and Shady Oak Road. A continued
public hearing..
B. BURGER KING, by Burger King Corp. Requests for develop-
ment of PUD 80-41, the Eden Glen PUD, rezoning of .8- acres
from Rural to C-Reg-Ser, and preliminary plat approval to:
construct a Burger King restaurant. Located in the north-
west corner of Glen Lane and Singletree Lane. A public
hearing.
C. EDENVALE 9TH ADDITION (REVISED) , by Equitable Life Assur-
ance Society. Request for development of Edenvale PUD
70-04, Planned Unit Development Concept approval for office
and industrial uses on 100 acres, preliminary plat approval,
and possible variances. Located north of TH 5 and west of
proposed Prairie Center Drive. A public hearing.
V. OLD BUSINESS
VI. NEW BUSINESS
A. Reschedule October 11, 1982 meeting to October 12, 1982
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
approved
Monday, September 13, 1982 7:30 PM, City Hall
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman William Bearman, Liz Retterath,
Virginia Gartner, Dennis Marhula, Grant
Sutliff, Robert Hallett
MEMBERS ABSENT: Hakon Torjesen
STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
Sue Hilgers, Planning Secretary
Pledge of Allegiance - Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Gartner moved to approve the agenda making Item VII item II. Marhula
seconded, motion carried 6-0.
II. NEW BUSINESS
A. Reschedule October 11, 1982 (legal Holiday) meeting to October 12, 1982.
MOTION
Gartner moved to reschedule the October 11, 1982 meeting to October 12, 1982.
Retterath seconded, motion carried 6-0.
III. APPROVAL OF AUGUST 9, 1982 MINUTES
Gartner moved to approve the August 9, 1982 minutes with the corrections
listed in the August 23, 1982 minutes. Marhula seconded, motion carried 6-0.
APPROVAL OF AUGUST 17, 1982 JOINT MINUTES
Sutliff moved to approve the August 17, 1982 minutes with the following
correction:
Page 2, 7th para. , 2nd line, "from a city planning standpoint and the other
from a site planning standpoint. It was Marhula's feeling that
there was a tendency for the Planning Commission to look at it
more from a site planning standpoint and it should be looked at
more from a city planning standpoint." changed to above.
Marhula seconded, motion carried 6-0.
APPROVAL OF AUGUST 23, 1982 MINUTES
Hallett moved to approve the minutes with the following corrections:
P. 1, Item II, motion, September 23 should be September 13.
2, 4th para. , 2nd line should read: 'concerns at looking at only 2.5
acres out of a 70 acre parcel . '
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -2- September 13, 1982
P. 4, 8th para. , 2nd line, add after 'employees' which is approximately
double the average size office for that number of employees.
4, Motion 1, add for purposes of discussion.
P. 5, Motion 2, Discussion, should be Marhula, and strike 'on a typical
sized office' add: upon the number of employees forcasted.
Marhula seconded, motion carried 4-0-2. Retterath and Sutliff abstained.
IV. MEMBERS REPORTS
None
V. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. SHADY OAK AMOCO, by Amoco Oil Company. Request for rezoning
.93 acres from Rural to Hwy-Com and preliminary plat for
construction of a gas station. Located in the southwest
corner of Crosstown 62 and Shady Oak Road. A continued public
hearing.
MOTION
Gartner moved to continue Shady Oak Amoco to the October 12, 1982
meeting with renotification to the neighbors. Retterath seconded, motion
carried 6-0.
B. BURGER KING, by Burger King Corp. Request for development
of PUD 80-41, the Eden Glen PUD, rezoning of .8 acres from
Rural to C-Reg-Ser, and preliminary plat approval to construct
a Burger King restaurant. Located in the northwest corner of
Glen Lane and Singletree Lane. A public hearing.
The Planner stated that Burger King and Jesco representatives were present.
John Shardlow, Howard Dahlgren & Associates, representing both Burger King and
Jesco. ,He introduced: Mr. Chet Zuzinski , President and Mr. Bill Quinlin, Vice
President, both of Jesco; Mr. Paul Sutherland, Area Operations Manager, Jay
VanDelson, Regional Vice-President, both of Burger King; Dennis Trissler, Site
Development Engineer, Bill McPanta, Project Realtor, Jim Benshoof, Traffic
Engineer, and Geoff Martin, Landscape Architect of Howard Dahlgren & Assoc.
Shardlow reviewed the location, basic access would be off Glen Lane, he stated
he felt that the stacking distance has been improved since Hardee's. Landscaping
is consistent with the overall Eden Glen landscape plan. 34 parking spaces are
proposed.
Sutherland stated that there will be from 50 to 80 hourly employees employed at
one time. He stated that Burger King would like to have a salad bar and stated
that they are currently experimenting with breakfast.
The Planner asked the number of employees during peak hour. Sutherland replied
the during the lunch rush there would be approximately 25 employees.
The Planner reviewed the staff report dated 9/3/82 and stated that he was concerned
with the number of parking spaces proposed.
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -3- September 13, 1982
Bearman stated that the letters from Mr. Hartman and Mr. Teman should be made part
of the minutes.
Sutliff asked why the parcel obtained during the Sheraton site is not included on
the overall site plan for Eden Glen that the Planning Commission recieved. Shardlow
replied that it goes along with the Sheraton site.
Sutliff asked if wood siding is consistent with the Design Framework Manual and
Ordinance and also asked if a roof over the drive-up lane is proposed. The Planner
replied yes, wood siding conforms. Shardlow replied no drive-up lane is proposed.
Sutliff asked Burger King's hours. Sutherland replied 10-11 and stated that the
late night hours are only provided at the drive-thru.
Sutliff expressdd concern for the number of parking spaces.
Bearman asked if the elevations of the bxisting surrounding homes are higher than
Burger King.. Shardlow replied yes, approximately 4-5 feet.
Bearman asked if landscaping will be provided there. Shardlow replied that a 3-4
foot berm will be placed 'as a buffer.
Bearman asked if a sign is proposed, and if it is lighted during working hours.
• Shardlow replied yes, a pylon sign. Sutherland replied yes, it will be lighted
during working hours.
Hallett stated he was concerned with the parking provided for Hardee§ and asked if
off-street parking for Burger King will be necessary. The Planner replied that
this situation could be similar, and stated that he felt that eventually, 'no
parking' signs will have to be placed along the roads. He stated that the
employer will have to find alternative parking places for the employees to park.
Hallett asked if Singletree Lane will extend to the ring route. The Planner replied
yes.
Marhula stated that potential conflict could occur with the drive-thru leading into
the parking lot instead of directly to the road. Shardlow stated that if the
Commission felt it would be better to have the exit onto the road, it could be
provided. The Planner stated that this proposed stacking lane is identical to
Hardees' .
Sutliff asked if Eden Road will be hard-surfaced. The Planner replied he felt that
if Burger King is built by December, hard-surfacing could be done in the next
building season.
Sutliff asked if Jesco will be willing to make sure hard-surfacing goes through.
The Planner replied that it is a City project.
Bearman stated that Mr. Gukenberg`s letter should be made part of the minutes.
• Gukenberg stated that he agrees with the pros and cons of the staff report.
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -4- September 13, 1982
MOTION 1
Marhula moved to close the public hearing. Sutliff seconded, motion carried 6-0.
MOTION 2
Marhula moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the Burger King re-
zoning from Rural to C-Reg-Ser as per the plan dated August 12, 1982 and the
September 3, 1982 staff report. Sutliff seconded.
DISCUSSION
Sutliff stated that he would like to add strong adherence to the City Code with
regards to building materials and construction.
Marhula asked if this project is in conformance with the Eden Glen PUD Design
Framework Manual. The Planner replied yes.
Marhula stated he felt that it would be good to stress adherence to the City
Code.
Motion carried 6-0.
MOTION 3
Marhula moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the preliminary plat
dated August 12, 1982 as per the staff report dated September 3, 1982. Sutliff
seconded.
• DISCUSSION
Beaman asked that public safety place restrictive 'no parking' signs along
Glen Lane, Eden Road, and Singletree Lane. Marhula and Sutliff agreed to
add it to the motion.
Motion carried 6-0.
C. EDENVALE 9TH ADDITION (REVISED) , by Equitable Life Assurance
Society. Request for development of Edenvale PUD 70-04,
Planned Unit Development Concept approval for office and
industrial uses on 100 acres, preliminary plat approval ,
and possible variances. Located north of TH 5 and west
of proposed Prairie Center Drive. A public hearing.
The Planner stated that the proposal is consistent with the Guide Plan Change that
was approved in the last couple of months. Dick Krier of Westwood was present to
give a presentation.
Krier stated that the changes made since the last meeting are all in conformance
with all requirements and the approved Guide Plan change. He gave a slide
presentation of the project.
The Planner asked if an agreement had been made with Banco to grade into Edenvale 9.
Krier replied that the trees are on their property, and stated that there is a
misunderstanding. He stated that the proponent would rather dedicate the con-
servancy zone as an easement.
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -5- September 13, 1982
Krier reviewed the surrounding land uses and stated that 'B' lane is a one-way
right turn only and 'A' circle is a two way. The site consists of .99 acres
of land. -The floodplain is at 928. He reviewed the grading plans and stated
that they are preserving the hill . He stated that Watershed District requires
seeding and mulching as grading occurs which will be done.
Hallett asked who is the owner of the land to the east? Krier replied
Mr. Carpenter.
The Planner reviewed the staff report dated 9/10/82.
Hallett asked the number of employees anticipated. Krier replied between 250 and
300. It later appeared closer to 3000 employees.
The Planner stated that the EAW was done on the first stage of application.
Bearman stated that he felt that providing food service on this site would be
good.
Bearman stated that he would like the City Attorney to review the covenants and
restrictions and the design framework. He stated that it should be up to
Equitable Life to enforce these.
• Sutliff asked the percentage of office and warehouse. Krier replied roughly
50% 'office and 50% warehouse.
MOTION 1
Sutliff moved to close the public hearing. Gartner seconded, motion carried
5-0-1. Marhula abstained because of a professional conflict.
MOTION 2
Sutliff moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the PUD as per the
plan dated August 19, 1982 and the September 10, 1982 staff report with the
addition of having the City Attorney review the covenants and restrictions and
the design framework and having at least a loop road constructed during
development. He stated that the covenants, restrictions, and design framework's
conformance should be the responsibility of the developer. Retterath seconded.
DISCUSSION
Hallett asked that the possibility of food services within the site be looked
into be added to the motion. Sutliff and Retterath agreed.
Motion carried 5-0-1. Marhula abstained.
MOTION 3
Sutliff moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the preliminary plat
dated August 19, 1982, as per the report dated September 10, 1982 with the
addition of having the City Attorney review the covenants and restrictions and
• the design framework and having at least a loop road constructed during
development. He stated that the covenants, restrictions, and design framework's
conformance should be the responsibility of the developer. Retterath seconded.
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -6- September 13, 1982
• DISCUSSION
Sutliff stated he would also like snow fences to be placed around the trees to
be protected during construction and ask the City Forester to take• a tree
inventory of the site, erosion control , etc.
Motion carried 5-0-1. Marhula abstained.
VT. OLD BUSINESS
None
VII. PL"ANNER"S REPORT
The Planner reviewed upcoming items.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Marhula moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:48 pm. Gartner seconded, motion
carried 6-0.
M 0
' r
City of Eden Prairie September 13, 1982
Planning Commision
I wish to express some concerns about the proposed
Burger King resturant now before the city.
The Eden Glen PUD was presented and adopted with a
limitation of two fast food restura.nts. These were located
at the extreme north end and adjacent to the highway resulting
in the minimum impact on surrounding property. One- of the
primary objectives expressed by city officials at the time
was to avoid a "fast food strip". This was a primary concern
of mine also.
The proposed site for the Burger King resturant i-s at
the 'front door ' of my land west of Eden Road. The proposed
site is part of a parcel previously owned by my former partner
and I. It was sold to accomodate the wishes of my partner,
now deceased. I was very much concerned about the type of
development which would occur on .this property. The Eden Glen
PUD alleviated these concernso
I know the question of the change in the PUD to accomodate
the proposed Sheraton will arise. I look at any luxury type
hotel as a major plus for property values 'in the area. I am
certain other near by property owners look on this 'similarity.
• The city has to look at the impact and compatibility of fast
foods surrounding a luxury hotel. I believe a luxury hotel
surrounded by quality supper clubs would be much more compatible
and better planning. .
The preceding comments should not be looked on as a vote
against fast foods. The current Burger King prototype is an
excellently designed building in my opinion and well land-
scaped. I would certainly like to see them locate in our
community. I just believe these are more compatible sites .
I see no need to duplicate the Hardees type operation in our
area of the community at this time.
Sincerely,
John K. Teman
Sept. 13, 1982 -
Eden Prairie Planning Commision
We want to state our opposition to the proposed Burger
King resturant directly across from our home on Eden Road.
We are very concerned about the noise and traffic this
close to our home, particularily the late hour traffic. We
are both 'empl.oyed at jobs which start -at 6 :00 A.M. This
means arising at 4 :30 A.M. and to bed at an early hour.
When the .initial PUP for the property was presented we raised
no objections because the fast foods were located at the far
.end of the property and away from the residential area. The
office site across from our home was acceptable as it has no
night time activity.
As for the proposed Sheraton Hotel, we raised no objection
because we considered it a different environment than a fast
food operation. We also considered a luxury hotel as a plus
for adjacent property values in the long term. We believe a
fast food would have a negative affect.
The original. PUD was limited to two fast foods. Why do
we need two of same so close to each other? We do not consider
this good planning, particularily a luxury hotel surrounded
by fast foods. We consider this proposal as a major deviation
.from the original PUP.
Sincerely,
Ernest and Helen Marvin
'ova '
4k