Planning Commission - 08/08/1983 AGENDA .
Eden Prairie Planning Commission
Monday, August 8, 1933
City Hall , 7:30 p.m.
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman William Bearman, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett,
Stan Johannes, Dennis Marhula, Ed Schuck, Hakon Torjesen
STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director ,of Planning
Kate Karnas, Planning Secretary
Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
III. MEMBERS REPORTS
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. TIMBER BAY MANOR HOMES, by Richard Miller Homes, Inc.
Request for Preliminary Plat of 14.8 acres into eight (8)
lots. Location: Timber Lakes Drive and County Road #4.- A'
continued public hearing. (
B. APPLEBAUM'S. Request for Planned Unit Development Amend-
ment, Zoning Amendment, and Preliminary Plat of 3.87 acres
for a grocery store. - Location: State Highway #169 and
Prairie Center Drive. A public hearing.
C. BLUFF RIDGE, by Mark Charles. Request for Planned Unit
Development Concept Review for a -mixed residential use,
Planned Unit Development District Review and Zoning from
Rural to RM=6.5 and R1-9.5 for 118 units, and Preliminary
Plat of 16.2 acres for mixed residential use. Location:
Southeast quadrant of County Road #1 and Franlo Road. A
public hearing.
D. BURGER KING RESTAURANTS. Request for Zoning District Change
from Community Commercial to Highway Commercial for
restaurant. Location: Southeast quadrant of State Highway
#5 and County Road #4. A public meeting.
V. OLD BUSINESS
VI. NEW BUSINESS
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, August 8, 1983
City Hall , 7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman William Bearman, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett,
Dennis Marhula, Hakon Torjesen
MEMBERS ABSENT: Stan Johannes, Ed Schuck
STAFF PRESENT: Stephen Sullivan, Assistant City Planner
Kate Karnas, Planning Secretary
Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Torjesen to adopt the agenda
as presented.
MOTION:
Motion carried--5-0-0
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Torjesen, to adopt the
minutes of the July 18, 1983, special Planning Commission meeting as
printed.
Motion carried--4-0-1 (Hallett abstained)
III. MEMBERS REPORTS
The Commission discussed the need for a special meeting in August
due to the number of projects being proposed. After consideration
of dates available, the Commission set a special meeting for August
29, 1983, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, City Hall.
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. TIMBER BAY MANOR HOMES, by Richard Miller Homes, Inc.
Request for Preliminary Plat of 14.8 acres into eight (8)
lots. Location: Timber Lakes Drive and County Road #4. A
continued public hearing.
At the last Planning Commission meeting, proponent was requested to
revise plans presented to include buffering in the form of berming
and landscaping for all the adjacent land uses and to show sight
lines from the adjacent existing single family homes along Island
Road and Timber Lakes Road.
Planning Commission Minutes 2 August 8, 1983
Mr. Jim Carver, Richard Miller Homes, Inc., presented plans, showing
the proposed landscaping for the project, and indicating views from
two sight lines from existing adjacent single family homes.
Torjesen stated that he understood that the berm along Island Road
was under construction and asked where the trees would be located
along that berm. Mr. Carver responded that the trees would be on
the road side of the berm.
Torjesen asked what had happened to the ditch section shown in the
previous plans. Mr. Mel Ford, Richard Miller Homes, °Inc., stated
that the plans had been amended to include both the berming
requested and the ditch section for storm water drainage.
Members of the Commission expressed concern for the fact that the
proponents had not submitted their revisions to the City in time for
the Staff to review the plans. Chairman Bearman pointed out that
the plans were still incomplete with respect to detail involving the
height and slopes of the berms, ground cover, caliper or height of
trees to be planted, and quantities of trees to be used on the site.
Chairman Bearman stated that he had also received a petition from
seven residents of the area requesting a copy of the plans requested
by the Planning Commission at its previous meeting in order to have
• a chance to review them. Chairman Bearman asked that the petition
be part of the minutes on this project.
Hallett questioned how much time was needed by Staff to review the
plans. Planner Sullivan stated that one week would be sufficient.
Torjesen stated that he acknowledged that the proponents would not
need to deal with the process of the landscape plan, if they had not
requested the platting, and that the platting was only for financial
flexibility for the project; however, he stated that he felt the
neighborhood, as a whole, would benefit by the time taken now on a
landscape plan for this project.
Bob Rove, 7988 Island Road, asked what type of ground cover was
being proposed. Mr. Carver responded that it would be grass.
Bob Dawson, 7986 Island Road, asked if Outlot F would be used for
public access to Mitchell Lake. Mr. Carver stated that it was not
to be dedicated to the City, but was to act as access for the
surrounding residents within the overall Timber Bay project.
Lloyd Schenke, 7908 South Bay Curve, asked how complete the existing
berm was. Mr. Carver responded that two feet would be added to the
height of the berm.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett, to continue action
on this item to the August 22, 1983, meeting pending review of the
Planning Commission Minutes 3 August 8, 1983
. proposed landscape/screening plan by Staff, as well as sight lines
to the existing and adjacent single family units. The proposed
landscape plan should be detailed to the level required by City
Code, including quantities, sizes, locations, etc. of all materials.
Motion carried--5-0-0
B. APPLEBAUM'S. Request for Planned Unit Development Amend-
ment, Zoning Amendment, and Preliminary Plat of 3.87 acres
for a grocery store. Location: State Highway #169 and
Prairie Center Drive. A public hearing.
Mr. David Shea, Shea Architects, representing proponent, presented
the plans for the subject project and pointed out significant design
and site features. He explained the relationships of the shared
driveways for the Applebaum's and adjacent sites, pointing out the
circulation for the entire area.
Planner Sullivan presented slides of the site, indicating the
visibility of the site from Prairie Center Drive and Highway #169.
He discussed the sight lines of the loading area from Prairie Center
Drive, and the screening of the parking which would be required in
order to meet City Code requirements.
Staff then reviewed the recommendations for the project from the
August 5, 1983 Staff Report. There were two items of major concern
on this development. The Applebaum's proposed in the original
Planned Unit Development for this area was° contemplated as a 30,000
square feet neighborhood grocery store, which would only serve Eden
Prairie. The current concept was to double the size of the store
and land area requirements, therefore, the proposal was now for a
60,000 square foot regional warehouse grocery operation. The second
major item of concern was site specific. It did not appear as if
the truck loading area could be adequately screened without
completely enclosing it or changing the site plan.
The Planning Commission asked Mr. Shea to review the responses to
the recommendations of the Staff Report for a complete overview.
Mr. Shea listed the following:
1. Screening was added to the parking lot.
2. Screening was added to the loading area, including a fence,
to block sight lines.
3. Landscaped parking islands were added to the parking lot.
4. Planters were added to the front of the building.
5. Parking lot lighting detail was provided, showing that it
was down lighting, consistent with the lighting within the
Eden Prairie Center and the surrounding area.
6. The rooftop mechanical units were screened in accordance
Planning Commission Minutes 4 August 8, 1983
• with City Code requirements.
7. Traffic information for this type of grocery store warehouse
was found to be 5.0 to 5.1 for such uses.
8. . Regarding the use of brick as an exterior material, Mr. Shea
presented exhibits of a brick-like material, and stated that
proponent was asking for allowance to use it, instead.
Mr. Shea stated that they- disagreed with Staff in two areas: 1) The
need for additional pedestrian access. Mr. Shea explained that most
people would likely cross within the parking lot area, rather than
walk "the long way around" to a pedestrian path to access the
building. Therefore, they did not show the pedestrian path at the
interior of the site; and, 2) The three-way access point to the
perimeter road of the Eden Prairie Center was felt to be adequate -as
it was. Mr. Shea stated that they did not have an alternative and
would prefer to leave the design as presented.
Gartner stated that she agreed with the proponent's position of not.
needing a pedestrian access when the parking lot would provide a
direct line to the building.-
Regarding the three-way access/egress for the parking lot to the
interior perimeter road of the Eden Prairie Center, Chairman Bearman
• expressed concern for the traffic that would be using the area,
particularly on Fridays when the banks would be open and people
would be depositing pay checks.
Torjesen expressed concern for the visibility of the loading area,
and the need for screening the unloading of trucks from the site to
the east. Mr. Shea stated that grocery stores generally , had
deliveries early in the morning, not during the office hours of the
facility across the street. He stated that they would be willing to
work with Staff to more effectively screen the area from this
easterly parcel.
Chairman Bearman suggested that landscaping be added to the east
elevation of the Applebaum's structure in order to break up the
massive size of the building.
Mr. Jerry Hegge, 10015 Pioneer Trail, stated that screening walls
were used for many of the uses along Washington Avenue, which had
been effective in screening truck loading areas.
Mr. Shea stated that they would attempt to meet the minimum
requirements for turning radius of emergency vehicles, while trying
to place a curve into the driveway for the trucks in order to
provide more screening of the driveway and less visibility of the
site from the use to the east.
Chairman Bearman stated that he recalled that the user to the east
was planning to provide a major amenity on its site. He stated that
he felt it would be advisable to have a copy of the plans for this
Planning Commission Minutes 5 August 8, 1983
• site, as well, to assure that the plans were coordinated and
compatible.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett,to continue this
item to the August 29, 1983, special Planning Commission meeting, to
allow the proponent opportunity to redesign the screening of the
loading area, to show that the parking lot would be compatible with
the Eden Prairie Center parking lot, to provide redesign of the
driveway for the truck loading area, and to provide information
regarding the site to the east for an overall perspective of the
development.
Motion carried--5-0-0
C. BLUFF RIDGE, by Mark Charles. Request for Planned Unit
Development Concept Review for a mixed residential use,
Planned Unit Development District Review and Zoning from
Rural to RM-6.5 and R1-9.5 for 118 units, and Preliminary
Plat of 16.2 acres for mixed residential use. Location:
Southeast quadrant of County Road #1 and Franlo Road. A
public hearing.
Mr. Charles Coombs, Mark Charles, reviewed the concept of the
project, explaining the relationship between the single family and
multiple family units. He also presented the architectural plans
for the units, exhibiting integration of the styles of units between
the single family and multiple family structures.
Staff reviewed the recommendations of the Staff Report of August 5,
1983.
Torjesen stated that he felt detail was missing regarding the
clustered units proposed within the development. He pointed out
that the clustered units had been allowed in other locations under
very specific conditions, and that other developments requesting the
same type of units should be prepared with the same level of detail.
Chairman Bearman questioned whether there were public roads in the
project. Mr. Coombs , explained that the north road within the
project was proposed to be a public road.
Hallett asked if there were public roads in other such proposals.
Staff responded that there were.
Chairman Bearman stated that he was 'concerned that 54 of the units
Planning Commission Minutes 6 August 8, 1983
• were located in an area with steep grades and within thick tree
stands. He suggested that sight lines would be helpful in
determining whether the units were properly placed within the site
area. He added that it appeared that some of the 54 units were
located in such a way that it seemed as 'if many existing trees .would
be removed.
Torjesen stated that he felt the requested Comprehensive Plan change
from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential needed
greater justification than was provided by the proponent. He stated
that he felt strongly that any change in the Comprehensive Plan
should be supported by rationale from the developer as to the
benefits and needs for such a change. Torjesen stated that he did
not feel adequate justification had been provided in this case.
Torjesen pointed out that the most intense land use was planned for
the most sensitive areas of the site, i.e. the areas in which tree
stands and drainage areas were located, and along the ridge of the
bluffs.
Mr. Wally Hustad, owner of the land, stated that the Guide Plan did
not reflect the 1977 Planned Unit Development for the site, but that
the area had been designated for single and multiple family
residential. He stated that the overall plan of the Bluffs area was
to keep the multiple residential units in close proximity to the
major arterials.
Marhula asked which party would be responsible for screening between
the single family units and the proposed church site to the north.
He suggested that this matter be clarified prior to final planning
detail for the site.
Marhula also questioned the storm water drainage for the site. As
noted in the Staff Report, the storm water drainage for the area was
becoming a larger question affecting the remainder of the
undeveloped properties in the area. . He stated that he felt it would
be important for the Engineering Department to evaluate the area in
greater detail prior to final action on the project.
Marhula also questioned the proposed single family units being
located directly across the street from multiple family units, and,
therefore, the lack of transition between differing uses.
Regarding the trees, Marhula stated that he agreed with Torjesen
regarding the need for greater effort to save trees on the site. He
stated that, while he realized that not all the trees could be
saved, the proponent could perhaps - move a step further toward
preservation of more of them on this site.
Torjesen stated that he would also like to have the proposed grading
plan and landscape plan for further review of the project,
particularly in view of the fact that there were differing land uses
on the site and adjacent to the site and due to the close proximity
to the bluffs area.
Planning Commission Minutes 7 August 8, 1983
• Torjesen asked if the smaller lot single family units along the
bluff ridge would meet the minimum lot requirements for that zoning
district. Mr. Coombs stated that they would.
Torjesen asked proponents for their comments regarding the proposed
access to County Road #1. Mr. Coombs stated that it was the
recommendation of City Staff to add the access to County Road #1.
Regarding the proposed Comprehensive Guide Plan change, Torjesen
stated that he felt any change to the Guide Plan should be justified
by the proponent. He stated that he felt this was a radical change
to the Guide Plan, as proposed. Torjesen suggested that the
proponents be prepared to answer questions such as how the City
would benefit by allowing the increased intensity of land use in
this area, in particular, allowing the greater density to be located
along the sensitive areas.
Jerry Hegge, 10015 Pioneer Trail, stated that he had several
concerns: 1) The sandy soils of the area would not hold water long,
and there was concern regarding the potential affect on the shallow
wells in this area; 2) The intersection of County Road #1 and County
Road #18 was already a source of traffic problems in the area at
peak times, and there was concern regarding the affect of this
development on that intersection; 3) There was need for a bike trail
along County Road #1 to decrease the possibility of accidents with
the increased traffic from the development; and, 4) A suggestion was
made regarding the headlights from vehicles within the development,
which would shine into his single family home to the east, that
berming be added or the road be realigned to prevent headlights from
shining directly into their windows. Mr. Hegge also expressed
concern for the number of garbage trucks using County Road #1 and
stated that he felt this truck route would have an effect on the
proposed development, as it was already impacting the existing
residents in the area.
Gartner stated that she agreed with the need for a bike trail along
County Road #1.
Chairman Bearman asked Staff to coordinate with Hennepin County
Department of Transportation regarding the proposed access to County
Road #1.
Torjesen stated that he felt strongly that projects of this size,
when requesting a Comprehensive Guide Plan change, should be dealt
with in two segments: First the land use issue, then the site
detail. He reiterated concern that the developer had not justified
the need for the Guide Plan change for this proposal, and,
therefore, he did not feel it was appropriate to deal with site
detail prior to answering land use questions.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Gartner, to continue item to
Planning Commission Minutes 8 August 8, 1983
the August 29, 1983, Planning Commission meeting with the proponent
to respond to the concerns addressed at this meeting, in particular,
the issue of the Comprehensive Guide Plan change.
Motion carried--5-0-0
D. BURGER KING RESTAURANTS. Request for Zoning District Change
from Community Commercial to Highway Commercial for a
restaurant. Location: Southeast quadrant of State Highway.
#5 and County Road #4. A public meeting.
Mr. Dave Sellegren, Larkin & Hoffman, representing Burger King,
reviewed the site features and the relationships of the use with the
surrounding properties and uses. Mr. Sellegren stated that, in
terms of traffic, Burger King servies as a receptacle function.
People going to Burger King are on their way to somewhere else.
Also, their peak hour was the lunch hour, not the morning or evening
peak traffic hours. He added that the proposed traffic access
situation was essentially the same as that approved for the previous
proposal on this site, with the exception of the westerly access,
which had been moved further south along County Road #4.
Mr. Sellegren stated that proponents would comply with the requested
changes to the landscape plan and site plan listed in the Staff
Report of August 5, 1983, regarding the parking and loading areas
and the landscaped strip along County Road #4. Also, he pointed out
that the rooftop mechanical equipment would be screened by the
parapet on top of the building.
Mr. Sellegren added that proponents had no objection to zoning only
that portion of the site which Burger King would occupy, leaving the
remaining portion as is.
Regarding the private road belonging to E. A. Sween along the south
property line of Burger King, Mr. Sellegren stated that they, along
with E. A. Sween representatives and representatives of Birchwood
Labs were working out the access considerations at this time. He
stated that it appeared as if all parties would be satisfied with
the outcome of the arrangement. Final details of the road were
being discussed with City Engineering Staff at this time.
Mr. Sellegren stated that proponents would not like to eliminate the
right-out access from the project. He referred to the letter from
the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT) letter of August
8, 1983, which stated that they would not object to the access.
Torjesen asked whether the letter from MNDOT had any influence upon
the Staff recommendation to eliminate any access to Highway #5.
Staff stated that the recommendation to eliminate the access would
stand, inspite of MNDOT recommendations as it was felt to be a safer
• situation without the access to Highway #5.
Gartner stated that she felt strongly that there should not be an
access to Highway #5 for safety purposes.
Planning Commission Minutes 9 August 8, 1983
i
Marhula asked how this site related to the Burger King site on
Louisiana Avenue in St. Louis Park. Dennis Trisler, Burger King,
stated that this site was smaller by 20 parking spaces and by
approximately 800 sq. ft.
Torjesen asked how the exit would be controlled: Jim Benschoof,
traffic consultant for proponent, stated that a "stop" sign would be
located at the intersection with Highway #5. He added that MNDOT
had suggested that the driveway be realigned to be at an acute
angle, less than 90 degrees, which would locate the access further
to the east along Highway #5.
Torjesen stated that if poor soils of the site to the east were
compelling, then the City could not use the option of frontage roads
along Highway #5 for ingress/egress.
Chairman Bearman stated that he did not feel the letter from MNDOT
was clear as to the acceptability of the proposed access to Highway
#5 from this site.
Mr. Benschoof stated that the realignment of the driveway in an
easterly direction would locate the access to Highway #5 further
away from the acceleration lane for County Road #4 access to Highway
#5, thereby creating a safer situation.
Hallett asked if Terrey Pine Drive would be aligned with this access
road. Staff stated that it would be.
Marhula pointed out that MNDOT reserves the right, in the event that
a traffic hazard would develop, to cancel the access to Highway #5.
He asked proponent how important the access to Highway #5 was to
their development. Mr. Trisler stated that, in their opinion, it
was very important. He stated that traffic would not have easy
access to the site from the west without a right-in situation off
Highway #5. It was their opinion that providing the right-out onto
Highway #5 would allow their customers some flexibility in terms of
circulation through the site.
Marhula asked about the purpose of the flood lights shown on the
roof of the structure. Mr. Sellegren stated that they would be for
lighting of the structure and signage, only, not the parking lot.
The parking lot lighting would be via light standards with cut-off
luminars.
Hallett stated that he recalled that the E. A. Sween project
proposed a security fence at the east end of the private access
road. He asked how emergency vehicles would access the site after
hours. Staff responded that the fence would run over by the
emergency vehicle, if necessary.
Hallett asked about the pedestrian system for the site. Staff
explained that access from City trails was available from the north
and south; however, access from the east and west along Highway #5
Planning Commission Minutes 10 August 8, 1983
• was not available.
Ann Renow, 16316 Lincoln Lane, stated that she felt a facility
should be built on this site that would service the community only,
not the surrounding communities. Her concerns were with respect to
traffic. She asked when County Road #4 was scheduled for upgrading.
Mr. Benschoof stated that the County told him it would be upgraded
at the same time as Highway #5 in this area.
Ms. Renow suggested that a "stop" sign be located behind the bike
trail along the west property line to give some warning to the
vehicles that there may be someone walking or bikeriding across
their path.
Dick Putnam, Tandem Corporation, representing Birchwood Labs, stated
that the access situation from the private drive owned by E. A.
Sween appeared to be working out to the satisfaction of his client,
as well. He added that the utilities questions for the road were
being worked on at this time. Mr. Putnam stated that Birchwood Labs
had no objections to the Burger King proposal.
MOTION
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Hallett, to recommend
• approval of the rezoning from Community Commercial to Highway
Commercial subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated
August 5, 1983, with the following additions and amendments: Item
if should read: "Allowing the access to Highway #5 based on revised
plans as discussed at the Planning Commission meeting of August 8,
1983, including an acute angle for the driveway access to Highway
#5;" adding item lh to read: "Proponent and City Staff shall study
the need for sidewalk connections to the existing sidewalks and
sidewalks along the south boundary of the site to service the
properties to the east;" adding item 2h to read: "Proponent shall
provide documented proof of the right of use of the private access
road along the south boundary of the property, currently owned by E.
A. Sween;" and, adding item 2i to read: "A 'stop' sign shall be•
located east of the bike path along the west boundary of the site."
Motion carried--4-0-1 (Gartner against)
V. OLD BUSINESS
Highway #5 Future Development
Hallett asked that the Planning Commission be updated on the latest
development for upgrading of Highway #5. Staff indicated that an
update would be available in several weeks, which would be before
the Commission for review and recommendation.
•
Planning Commission Minutes 11 August 8, 1983
• VI. NEW BUSINESS
Current Development
The Commissioners expressed concern for the volume of projects being
processed through the City at this time. They also stated concern
for the number of developers which were not complying with
submission requirements. Commissioners discussed the situation with
Staff in greater detail.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Hallett, directing Staff to
review the situation and return to the Planning Commission with some
suggested guidelines to adopt and for the City to follow to
alleviate the problem of incomplete projects.
Motion carried--5-0-0
Lee Data Landscaping
Hallett asked Staff to review the landscaping at the Lee Data site
with respect to the effectiveness of the screening of the parking
lot via use of the tennis courts. Staff responded that they had
. been working with the Lee Data staff to mitigate the situation and
would report back to the Commission at a future meeting.
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
None.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Marhula, seconded by Torjesen.
Chairman Bearman adjourned the meeting at 12:15 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kate Karnas
Planning Secretary