Planning Commission - 05/07/1984 AGENDA
Monday, May 7, 1984
9chool Board Meeting Room
'COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman William Bearman, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett, Stan
Johannes, Dennis Marhula, Ed Schuck, Hakon Torjesen
STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael D. Franzen, Senior
Planner; Kate Karnas, Recording Secretary
Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
III. MINUTES
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
( 7:40) A. CITY WEST CONVENTION CENTER, by Hospitality Growth Services. Request for
Zoning District Change from Rural to Commercial Regional Service, with
variances (before the Board of Appeals), and Preliminary Plat of 5.5 acres
for a Hotel-Convention Center. Location: Northeast quadrant of City West
Parkway and County Road 61 . A continued public hearing.
( 8:10) B. EDENVALE 18TH AND 19TH ADDITIONS, by Edenvale Corporation. Request for
Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5, with variances, (before the
Board of Appeals), for 12.35 acres and Preliminary Plat of 12.35 acres
into 12 single family cluster lots and 17 single family lots. Location:
Edenvale Boulevard at Woodland and Birch Island Drives. A public hearing.
( 8:45) C. CATHEDRAL OF PRAISE. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from
Low Density Residential to Public for a Church; Planned Unit Development
District Review for approximately 15 acres. Location: Southwest quadrant
of Highway #169 and Shady Oak Road, on Bryant Lake Drive. A public
hearing.
( 9:30) D. LION'S TAP--Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density
Residential to Commercial for 1.6 acres; and Preliminary Plat of 17.0
acres into three lots. Location: Northwest quadrant of Highway #169 and
County Road #4. A public hearing. (Board of Appeals action required)
(10:00) E. PRAIRIE KNOLL, by Hestia Homes, Inc. Request for Planned Unit Development
District Review and Zoning from Rural to R1-9.5, with variances, for 60
single family residential units and Preliminary Plat of 24 acres into 60
lots and outlots. Location: Northwest quadrant of Valley View Road and
Edenvale Boulevard. A public hearing.
V. NEW BUSINESS
VI. OLD BUSINESS
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
NOTE: The times listed above are tentative.
MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, May 7, 1984
School Board Meeting Room
8100 School Road
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman William Bearman, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett,
Stan Johannes, Dennis Marhula (8:50 p.m.), Ed Schuck, Hakon
Torjesen
MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael D. Franzen,
Senior Planner; Kate Karnas, Recording Secretary
Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION:
Motion was made by Torjesen, seconded by Johannes, to rearrange the items of
the agenda under D. Development Proposals, as follows: E, A, B, C, D, and
ato approve the agenda as amended.
Motion carried--6-0-0
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
None.
III. MINUTES
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Torjesen, to approve the minutes of
the April 23, 1984, Planning Commission meeting as printed.
Motion carried--6-0-0
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
E. PRAIRIE KNOLL, by Hestia Homes,. Inc. Request for Planned Unit
Development District Review and Zoning from Rural to R1-9.5, with
variances, for 60 single family residential units and Preliminary
Plat of 24 acres into 60 lots and outlots. Location: Northwest
quadrant of Valley View Road and Edenvale Boulevard. A public
hearing.
Staff explained that a deficiency in the hearing notice had occurred with
this project, resulting in several adjacent residents not being notified of
the hearing. Staff stated that the item could be renoticed in time for the
Planning Commission Minutes 2 May 7, 1984
meeting of May 14, 1984, allowing for the least possible delay for the
proponent.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Schuck, seconded by Gartner, to continue this item to the
May 14, 1984, Planning Commission meeting.
Motion carried--6-0-0
A. CITY WEST CONVENTION CENTER, by Hospitality Growth Services.
Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to Commercial Regional
Service, with variances (before the Board of Appeals), and
Preliminary Plat of 5.5 acres for a Hotel-Convention Center.
Location: Northeast quadrant of City West Parkway and County Road
61 . A continued public hearing.
Planner Enger explained that the Planning Commission had continued the
public hearing on this item from the April 9, 1984, Planning Commission
meeting pending revision of the plans for greater compliance with City Code
requirements.
Mr. Chuck Engles, Architectural Development Corporation, reviewed the
changes with the Commission, which included the following: "back of the
house" items, such as laundry, housekeeping, etc., had been relocated to a
basement level; two additional rows of parking had been added at-grade;
building capacity had changed in terms of occupancy allowed; the northern
most access to the site had been eliminated; and, at the request of the
Planning Commission, Mr. Engles reviewed a colorboard of the materials to be
used at the project.
Planner Enger reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report
of May 7, 1984. Staff reviewed the revised parking situation, particularly
with respect to the noon weekday peak hour situation.
Chairman Bearman asked how the City would enforce the cross parking
easements necessary with the property to the south. Staff responded that a
legal document would be required to be reviewed by the City and the City
would also require proof of filing of the easement over both of the
properties. Chairman Bearman asked if the City would be able to control
future land owners of either parcel with regard to these cross-access
easements. Staff responded that in other situations such as this, language
was included which stated that neither party could unilaterally terminate
the agreement. Staff added that they would check with the City Attorney as
to the details of such an agreement.
Schuck asked if there would also be a cross easement with the Primetech
project to the north. Mr. Jim Eastman, Hospitality Growth, Inc., stated
that they had not considered an easement with the project to the north;
. however, they would be willing to do so.
Hallett asked if Staff was comfortable with the revised parking situation.
Staff responded that, in their opinion, the new parking arrangement was
sufficient based upon the occupancy rates for the various uses within the
Planning Commission Minutes 3 May 7, 1984
structure.
Torjeson asked if the building had been increased in height. Mr. Engles
responded that it had not, however one level had been added underground.
Johannes asked what the floor area ratio was for the project. Staff
responded that it was 0.62, while Code required 0.4 as a maximum floor area
ratio for such a use. Staff added that the proponent would have to appear
before the Board of Appeals for variance to the floor area ratio, as well as
height and number of parking spaces.
Chairman Bearman asked for comments and questions from members of the
audience. There were none.
Torjeson asked if the variance for floor area ratio was justified. Staff
responded that the floor area ratio greater than 0.4 had been contemplated
in the original Planned Unit Development for the site, which indicated a
hotel of ten to twelve stories. Staff pointed out that this site was in
conformance with all setback requirements for such a use.
MOTION 1 :
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Schuck, to close the public hearing.
• Motion carried--6-0-0
MOTION 2•
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Schuck, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Hospitality Growth for a zoning district
change from Rural to Commercial Regional Service for 5.5 acres for a
hotel/convention center, based on plans dated April 30, 1984, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated April 23, and May 4, 1984.
Motion carried--6-0-0
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Schuck, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Hospitality Growth for preliminary plat
of 5.5 acres for a hotel/convention center, based on plans dated April 30,
1984, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated April 23, and
May 4, 1984.
Motion carried--6-0-0
B. EDENVALE 18TH AND 19TH ADDITIONS, by Edenvale Corporation. Request
for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5, with variances,
(before the Board of Appeals), for 12.35 acres and Preliminary Plat
of 12.35 acres into 12 single family cluster lots and 17 single
family lots. Location: Edenvale Boulevard at Woodland and Birch
Island Drives. A public hearing.
It was the decision of the Commission to handle each of the additions as
Planning Commission Minutes 4 May 7, 1984
separate items, with separate hearings and motions.
Edenvale 18th
Chairman Bearman asked that the letter received from Joan F. Ryder, 6819
Woodhill Trail, and another letter from Chip and Barbara Hanback, Bob and
JoAnne Schwartz, John and Jonnie Mostrom, and John and Lynn Scott, all
residents of Hickory Court backing up to the 19th Addition, be accepted and
made a part -of the record of the minutes of this meeting regarding these two
items.
Mr. Jack Lynch, Westwood Planning and Engineering, presented the site
characteristics and features of the proposed development.
Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff
Report of May 4, 1984, pointing out that the project had originally been
proposed for cluster development of single family homes. He stated that,
after discussions with proponent, the plan had been revised from twelve
cluster units down to ten single family R1-9.5 lots.
Torjeson asked why the proponent was requesting R1-9.5 zoning instead of
larger single family lots, perhaps R1-13.5 lots. Staff responded that the
project proposed did meet the intent of the original Planned Unit
Development, which showed this area as multiple residential, and which had
been originally proposed for residential multiple units at 6,500 square feet
per unit.
Johannes expressed concern for the amount of traffic that would be
introduced onto Edenvale Boulevard. He asked Staff what the capacity of
Edenvale Boulevard would be at that point along its frontage. Staff
responded that Edenvale Boulevard would be capable of handling 9,000 trips
per day at this point. The City was in the process at this time of
obtaining proper crossing of the railroad tracks in this vicinity, which
would open Edenvale Boulevard to the north. The completion of this project
was contemplated within several months. Planner Enger pointed out that the
traffic capacity for Edenvale Boulevard had been based upon the more dense
plan showing multiple residential for this area, which had been originally
approved as part of the Edenvale overall Planned Unit Development. Until
the railroad crossing was finalized, Staff pointed out that the only route
out of this area of the City would have been south to Valley View Road then
on to other major roads. The opening of the northerly route would greatly
alleviate traffic in this vicinity.
Johannes asked if there would be a problem created by allowing access of
Street "A" within the Edenvale 18th Addition to Edenvale Boulevard, as well
as allowing access to Birch Island Road. Staff responded that the majority
of traffic would likely use Edenvale Boulevard, as opposed to using Birch
Island Road, due to the preferred access point at Edenvale Boulevard and the
fact that Birch Island Road was currently a gravel street.
Hallett asked if Birch Island Road would still be routed west to connect
with County Road #4. Staff responded that it would, however, there were no
plans for paving this gravel section of road at this time.
Planning Commission Minutes 5 May 7, 1984
Chairman Bearman asked for comments and questions from members of the
audience. There were none.
MOTION 1 :
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Schuck, to close the public hearing.
Motion carried--6-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Schuck, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-
9.5 for Edenvale 18th Addition for 3.15 acres, based on plans dated May 3,
1984, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated May 4, 1984.
Motion carried--6-0-0
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Schuck, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request for Preliminary Plat of 3.15 acres for ten
lots for Edenvale 18th Addition, based on plans dated May 3, 1984, subject
to the recommendations of. the Staff Report dated May 4, 1984.
Motion carried--6-0-0
Edenvale 19th
Mr. Jack Lynch, Westwood Planning and Engineering, reviewed the site
features and characteristics of the proposed development with the Planning
Commission.
Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the staff
report of May 4, 1984.
Chairman Bearman asked if the request for a stop sign, made by Ms. Ryder, in
her letter to the Planning Commission, could be forwarded to the City
Engineer. Staff responded that they would do so, and that it would be the
Engineer's final determination as to whether a stop sign would be necessary
at this location.
Torjeson asked if proponents had prepared a tree inventory of significant
trees to be lost or destroyed with construction. Staff had responded that
one had not been prepared, but that it could be done prior to Council, if
that was the wish of the Planning Commission.
Johannes asked for the location of trails within the vicinity. Planner
Franzen stated that it was Staff's opinion that trails were not needed
• within the project; however, a trail did exist along the north side of
Edenvale Boulevard in this' location.
Torjeson stated that it appeared as if all of Lots 10 and 11 , and a portion
of Lot 9, would be completely graded, which would eliminate many of the
Planning Commission Minutes 6 May 7, 1984
trees in this vicinity. He stated that he felt a tree inventory would be
necessary, and perhaps a change in the grading plan made, before final
approval could be given for these three lots, in particular. Staff
responded that they agreed that an adjustment in the grading plan could make
a significant difference in the amount of trees that would be saved in this
vicinity.
Schuck asked what the price range of the units would be for this
development. Mr. John Lassen, Equitable Life Insurance Company, responded
that the homes would range between 1,200-1,600 square feet per house with a
price range of $90,000 to $150,000 each.
Mr. Chip Hanback, 14892 Hickory Court, stated that he was concerned about
the removal of trees in this vicinity. He stated that the tree cover in
this location would be the only transition from the proposed project to
their homes, which were located directly south of the area shown for Lots 8
through 11 . He added that the homes on Hickory Court range between $150,000
to $220,000 in price, and questioned the impact of lower price homes upon
the value of their own existing proerties.
Mr. Jack Bergland, stated he was building a home currently on Hickory Court,
and expressed concern for the amount of traffic which would be present upon
Edenvale Boulevard in this area. He stated he was concerned because of the
condition of Edenvale Boulevard in this vicinity. Staff responded that this
area of Edenvale Boulevard was susceptible to frost heaving, due to poor
soils within the road base. Mr. Bergland also questioned the compatibility
of the proposed development along with the existing development along
Hickory Court. Staff responded that this area had been shown for multiple
residential development within the original Planned Unit Development for
Edenvale, and that, in Staff's review of the project, such matters as the
fact that proponents were showing four lots abutting the existing four lots
along Hickory Court had been determining factors as to the compatibility of
the two developments. Mr. Bergland also added that he was concerned about
the loss of trees proposed by this development.
Mr. Lynch discussed comparisons between the existing Woodhill Addition, to
the south, and the proposed development of Edenvale 19th. He pointed out
that the setback requirements within the R1-9.5 zoning district allowed
developers to build a larger house than would be possible in the R1-13.5
zoning district, which was the zoning district of the Woodhill Development
to the south. He also pointed that the average size of the lots within the
Edenvale 19th Addition was larger than the average lot size within the
Woodhill Addition.
Mr. John Mostrum, 14902 Hickory Court, expressed concern about the removal
of trees. He stated that several of the neighbors had reviewed the site
over the weekend and had determined that more than a few of the significant
trees on this property would be removed by street and house development.
Mr. Mostrum and Mr. Hanback pointed out these areas to the Commission.
Mr. Robert Schwartz, 14882 Hickory Court, asked if the developer would be
building upon the lots, or if the lots would be sold to another builder.
Mr. Richard Hupple, American Dream Homes, responded that he would be
Planning Commission Minutes 7 May 7, 1984
i
intending to purchase the lots from the proponents and would be building
homes similar to those under construction in another part of the City. He
stated that his model home was located at 6885 Hallmark Drive. Mr. Schwartz
also asked what the intentions of the proponent were for the property
adjacent to Edenvale 19th Addition to the east along the railroad tracks.
Mr. Lassen responded that they were currently working with the railroad to
determine a proper crossing point in order to allow for suitable ingress and
egress to this property. At such time as the access would be determined,
proponents again would appear before the Planning Commission with a proposal
for multiple or single family residential development, depending on the best
suited use for this site. Mr. Schwartz asked what price range of the
proposed American Dream Homes would be for these two developments. Mr.
Hupple responded that they would range between $90,000 and $150,000 per
unit.
Torjeson reiterated concern for the potential loss of trees in this project.
Mr. Lassen responded that they would be willing to replace trees on the
site, if that were the Commission's desire. Torjeson stated that he would
prefer an opportunity to review a tree inventory and a possible change in
the grading plan prior to action on the site. Staff pointed out that a
revised grading plan, which would include relocation to Street "A" further
to the northeast, may result in the loss of more than one lot for this
project.
Hallett stated that he was comfortable with a Staff review of the tree
inventory, and, if it was Staff's determination that the Planning Commission
should review the site again, then it should be brought back to the
Commission. However, if the tree inventory and any potential revised grading
plans were adequate, the item should be forwarded to the Council for final
action.
MOTION 1 :
Motion was made by Torjesen, seconded by Gartner, to continue the public
hearing, pending submittal of a tree inventory for the site, and, possibly a
revised grading plan, based on the tree inventory.
Motion failed--3-3-0 (Chairman Bearman, Torjesen, and Gartner in favor;
Johannes, Hallett, and Schuck, against)
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Johannes, to close the pubilc
hearing.
Motion carried--5-1-0 (Torjesen against)
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Johannes, to recommend to the City
Council approval .of the request for Zoning District Change from Rural to Rl-
9.5 for 17 lots on 9.20 acres for Edenvale 19th Addition, based on plans
dated March 5, 1984, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report
dated May 4, 1984, with the following added condition: "Proponent shall
Planning Commission Minutes 8 May 7, 1984
submit a tree inventory, indicating trees to be lost or damaged during
construction. Based on the inventory, an amended grading plan may be
required for preservation of trees on the site. Should it be Staff's
opinion that additional review is required by the Planning Commission based
on the tree inventory, the item shall be returned to the Commission for
further review."
Motion carried--5-1-0 (Gartner against)
MOTION 3-
Move to recommend to the City Council approval of the request for
Preliminary Plat of Edenvale 19th Addition for 17 lots on 9.20 acres, based
on plans dated March 5, 1984, subject to the recommendations of the Staff
Report dated May 4, 1984, with the following added condition: "Proponent
shall submit a tree inventory, indicating trees to be lost or damaged during
construction. Based on the inventory, an amended grading plan may be
required for preservation of trees on the site. Should it be Staff's
opinion that additional review is required by the Planning Commission based
on the tree inventory, the item shall be returned to the Commission for
further review."
Motion carried--5-1-0 (Gartner against)
• (Marhula arrived at 8:50 p.m.)
C. CATHEDRAL OF PRAISE. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment
from Low Density Residential to Public for a Church; Planned Unit
Development Concept for approximately 15 acres. Location:
Southwest quadrant of Highway #169 and Shady Oak Road, on Bryant
Lake Drive. A public hearing.
Mr. Darrell LeBarron, Station 19 Architects, reviewed site coverage,
surrounding land uses, vegetation, and soils, on the site. He also reviewed
the building elevations, which were proposed to include masonry and glass.
Mr. LeBarron pointed out that this would be a regional church facility, and
would have much the appearance of a corporate use. He also reviewed the
Planned Unit Development request, including variances requested for the
height of the sign and the height of the structure, and a proposal for
expansion of the project to two sites at the south end of the project.
Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and the recommendations of the Staff
Report of May 4, 1984, including concerns for effective screening of the
parking areas, tree preservation, parking lot arrangement, overall site
grading, access, building materials, and traffic impact of the use.
Chairman Bearman asked what uses would be appropriate for this site.
Planner Franzen responded that the site was designated for Low Density
Residential or Undesignated uses by the Comprehensive Guide Plan. He added
that based upon the development features of any project proposed on this
site, it would be possible for many uses to be appropriate on this property.
Chairman Bearman asked how this site and use compared to the Wooddale
Baptist Church site to the north, which was also a regional church site with
Planning Commission Minutes 9 May 7, 1984
similar site constraints. Planner Franzen responded that the Wooddale
Baptist Church site contained 30 acres and was proposed for 1,800 seats,
while the Cathedral of Praise was proposed for 15 acres, with a potential of
2,000 seats within the structure.
Chairman Bearman asked what the service area for the church would be. Mr.
Allan Walker, pastor for the congregation, responded that they would have
people attending this church from approximately a 30-mile radius. The
church was currently located in Edina.
Torjeson stated that in his opinion, perhaps single family residential
development of this site would be less appropriate in terms of the amount of
disturbance of the natural features that would be created by this type of
development, versus single family. He added that while the church may
benefit from exposure from Highway #169, it would be a less desirable
feature for single family development to be exposed to the traffic and noise
of Highway #169.
Marhula stated that he felt it would be possible to retain the use of this
area as a residential land use, however, it may not be appropriate to allow
single family development within this area. He suggested that perhaps a
multiple residential development of a low density would be appropriate in
this area.
• Mr. Don Sorenson, 7121 Willow Creek Road, stated that the decision to guide
the land as Low Density Residential had been made many years ago. He stated
that the idea that noise and traffic impacts from Highway #169 would be a
detriment to a single family development was not valid, in his opinion, as
there were many examples of expensive homes located along this highway
frontage within this vicinity. Mr. Sorenson stated that he felt single
family development on large lots would be appropriate for this area.
Mr. Dan Grote, 7061 Willow Creek Road, asked what would happen to the auto
salvage lot which existed between this site and the Wooddale Baptist site to
the north if this guide plan change were approved. Staff responded that the
auto salvage site was also guided for Low Density Residential development.
However, decisions such as a change in the guide plan for this site would
have an added impact for the potential use for the auto salvage site.
Mr. John Golle, 7039 Willow Creek Road, expressed concern for the amount of
traffic in this area. He stated that a previous proposal from Detroit
Diesel from years ago would have had less traffic impact in this vicinity.
He added that he agreed with Mr. Sorenson that large lot single family
residential would be appropriate in this area, as it was already the trend
for the homes along Willow Creek Road and adjacent sites along Highway #169.
Mr. Golle stated that he was concerned about the impact, not only of the
Wooddale Baptist Church, but of the addition of such a use as this, on this
neighborhood. He stated that the neighborhood was currently undergoing a
great deal of development, and, without knowledge of the impact which would
result from the Wooddale Baptist Church, it would not be appropriate for the
City to allow another regional church within this neighborhood. He asked
that the Commission consider this in their decision.
Marhula asked what features of this site had attracted the Cathedral of
Planning Commission Minutes 10 May 7, 1984
Praise to it for its future development. Mr. LeBarron stated that any site
within the belt line (I-494) vicinity was a desirable site for a regional
facility such as this. Also, Mr. LeBarron stated that this particular site
offered two accesses from a major thoroughfare.
Mrs. Elaine Sorenson, 7121 Willow Creek Road, stated that she did not
necessarily agree that single family development was the only way to develop
this property. She added that she was concerned about the impact of all the
development, including City West, Wooddale Baptist Church, James
Refrigeration, and others, upon their neighborhood.
Mr. James McNeill, 7251 Willow Creek Road, stated that he agreed with Mrs.
Sorenson and Mr. Golle regarding the impact of existing development upon
their neighborhood. Marhula stated that it appeared as if this regional
church would have significant impact upon the site, similar to those of
commerical uses in terms of traffic and parking considerations for this
neighborhood.
Gartner expressed concern about the future of the auto salvage area to the
north. She also stated that she felt the impact of two such regional
facilities upon this neighborhood would be great.
Schuck stated that he, too, was concerned about the impact of the existing
facility, which had not yet been completed, upon this neighborhood. Schuck
• asked Staff if a traffic study had been prepared for this area. Staff
responded that one had not been prepared.
Mr. Sorenson stated that the City should keep in mind that while the
greatest traffic impact would be on Sunday for the church, there would be
other uses for the church on other days of the week, especially evenings.
He added that Bryant Lake Drive, upon its completion, had become a shortcut
for many people within this area, and had become an alternate route for
those people not wanting to deal with stop and go traffic on Highway #169.
Hallett expressed concern that a single family development, not done
sensitively, could impact this site and its natural features in a much more
negative manner than a use such as this. He added that he had not seen very
many large lot developments proposed within the City while he had been with
the Commission. Hallett also expressed concern for the amount of traffic on
Bryant Lake Drive, adding that it would likely become a greater attraction
as a shortcut once the bank was built to the north.
Johannes stated that he was not sure that the best land use for this site
would be single family or a church. He stated that he would prefer to see a
traffic study discussing impact of traffic on this neighborhood prior to
making a decision.
Mr. LeBarron stated that the church was under somewhat of a time pressure
due to financing considerations.
Mr. Golle stated that he felt the church had been sensitive in its design of
a plan for this site; however, he was more concerned about the impact of two
such uses upon their neighborhood. He added that he did not feel the City
should act upon this proposal based on financial considerations of the
Planning Commission Minutes 11 May 7, 1984
church.
Mr. Sorenson stated that there were other large lot residential developments
within this area of the community, and that he still considered this the
best use for this site.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Torjesen, seconded by Gartner, to close the public
hearing for Cathedral of Praise and make the following recommendations to
the City Council :
1 . Recommend denial of the request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change
from Rural and proposed Planned Unit Development Concept for
Cathedral of Praise as the Commission finds that the site impacts
relative to access, grading, tree loss, and traffic would be
negative from this development.
2. Recommend affirmation of the existing Comprehensive Guide Plan
designation of Low Density Residential/Undesignated for the
property.
Motion carried--6-1-0 (Johannes against)
• Johannes stated he voted against as he was uncertain that a case had been
made for either designation of the Guide Plan use for this site.
D. LION'S TAP--Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density
Residential to Commercial for 1 .6 acres; and Preliminary Plat of
17.0 acres into three lots. Location: Northwest quadrant of
Highway #169 and County Road #4. A public hearing. (Board of
Appeals action required)
Mr. Dick Putnam, Tandem Corporation, reviewed the history of the site with
the Commission. Mr. David Kirscht, reviewed the landscaping plan and
restoration plan for the site. Mr. Rick Sathre, Sathre-Bergquist, reviewed
the parking lot arrangement, grading plan, and proposed realignment of the
County Road Highway #169 intersection involved with this proposal.
Planner Enger reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report
for this proposal of May 4, 1984. He stated that Staff's major concern
regarding the grading would be that the west end of the site be regraded to
match the existing contours, as opposed to creating a more "unnatural" slope
in this area.
Gartner asked why proponents had shown one site which would be less than the
ten-acre minimum in the Rural zoning district for the Preliminary Plat. Mr.
Tony Noterman, attorney for proponent, explained the lot purchases to the
Commission.
Gartner stated that she did not see any justification for approval for 5.6
acre parcel for the project. Torjeson stated that he agreed with Gartner.
Mr. Bert Noterman stated that he had begun this process at a time when the
Planning Commission Minutes 12 May 7, 1984
City had allowed five-acre parcels within the Rural zoning district. Staff
stated that the City was not disputing the amount of land owned by Mr.
Noterman; however, they were concerned about creating a lot which would not
meet minimum requirements for the other proponent involved in the project.
Mr. Dean Edstrom, 10133 Eden Prairie Road, stated that he agreed with the
Commissioners regarding the lack of justification for a site under ten acres
within this development. He added that he felt the City should also deny
approval of the 9.6 acre site proposed within this project. Mr. Edstrom
added that if this site and its development was dependent upon the
relocation of the County Road #169 intersection that the City should have a
final decision from the County as to timing and financial committment for
relocation of this intersection. Staff responded that the County had not
made a financial committment at the time this item had previously been
before the Commission, approximately one year ago, and that they still had
not made any committment. However, the relocation of the road was much
preferable to the existing conditions, and, if established at this time,
could only help this proposal and the traffic in this vicinity.
Mr. Loren Wuttke, 16860 Flying Cloud Drive, asked Mr. Noterman if there
would be any proposed change in the type of business he was operating at the
Lion's Tap as a result of this proposal . Mr. Noterman stated that there
would not be. Mr. Wuttke stated that he, too, was against the idea of a lot
being approved which did not meet the ten-acre minimum for the Rural zoning
district.
Mr. Noterman responded that he felt that he had been acting in good faith,
and that he desired to meet the City requirements when he began this
proposal .
Hallett stated that he felt he could support the 9.6 acre site, however, he
also was not in favor of the 5.8 acre site at the north portion of this
project.
Johannes asked if the realignment of the intersection of County Road #4 and
Highway #169 would have a positive impact upon the Lion's Tap site. Staff
responded that it would, allowing a front yard for the property, as opposed
to parking within what would be the front yard for the project.
MOTION 1 :
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Torjesen, to continue the public
hearing on the proposed preliminary plat for Lion's Tap, pending resolution
of the size of the northerly most parcel, and its compliance with the
minimum lot size regulations for the Rural District of ten acres.
Motion carried--6-1-0 (Chairman Bearman against)
Chairman Bearman stated he voted against and he did not feel it was
appropriate for the City to allow the expansion of this non-conforming use
within this area, nor to condone further development of the property.
Planning Commission Minutes 13 May 7, 1984
i
MOTION 2•
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett, to close the public hearing
for the Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to
Commercial for the Lion's Tapand to recommend to the City Council approval
of the request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment for 1 .6 acres for the
Lion's Tap from Low Density Residential to Commercial, based on plans dated
February 9, 10, and June 10, 1982, subject to the recommendations of the
Staff Report dated May 4, 1984.
Motion carried--4-3-0 (Gartner, Hallett, Johannes, Marhula in favor)
(Chairman Bearman, Schuck, Torjesen against)
V. NEW BUSINESS
None.
VI. OLD BUSINESS
None.
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
None. '
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Respectfully submitted,
Kate Karnas
Recording Secretary