Loading...
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