Planning Commission - 04/13/1987 AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, April 13, 1987
7:30 p.m.
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman Ed Schuck, Richard Anderson, Julianne Bye,
Christine Dodge, Doug Fell , Robert Hallett, Charles Ruebling
STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen, Senior
Planner; Don Uram, Assistant Planner; Kate Karnas,
Administrative Assistant
Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call
I . APPROVAL OF AGENDA
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
III. MINUTES
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
(7:35) A. SUBURBAN NATIONAL BANK/PRESERVE MEDICAL BUILDING, by Supplee's 7-Hi
Enterprises, Inc. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from
Low Density Residential to Office on 1.09 acres, Zoning District
Change from Rural to Office on 1.09 acres with variances to be
reviewed by the Board of Appeals and Preliminary Plat of 1.09 acres
into one lot for the construction of a two-story office building.
Location: South of Anderson Lakes Parkway, west of County Road #18.
A continued public meeting.
(7:40) B. LUNDS CENTER, by Commercial Partners, Inc. Request for Zoning
District Change from Rural to C-Reg-Ser on 6.1 acres with variances
to be reviewed by Board of Appeals, Preliminary Platting of 6.1
acres into one lot and road right-of-way for construction of 58,108
square feet of commercial uses. Location: Southeast corner of
Franlo Road and Prairie Center Drive. A continued public hearing.
(8:15) C. ANDERSON' S GARDEN CENTER, by Don C. and Rita L. Anderson and H.J.
Nyhamner. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low
Density Residential to Community Commercial on 2.2 acres, Zoning
District Change from R1-22 to C-Commercial on 1.6 acres and from R1-
22 to R1-13.5 on 1.86 acres, with variances to be reviewed by the
Board of Appeals, and Preliminary Plat of 3.1 acres into six lots
and road right-of-way. Location: Southeast corner of County Road
#4 and Valley View Road, west of Westgate Lane. A continued public
hearing.
(9:00) D. WILLOW CREEK 3RD ADDITION, by Joel R. Harding, Kathleen J. Harding,
Elaine L. Sorensen and Robert 0. Naegele. Request for Re-platting
of approximately eight acres into five lots, three outlots, and road
right-of-way. Location: West of Bryant Lake Drive, ea.st of Bryant
Lake, and south of Willow Creek Road. A public hearing.
Agenda
Planning Commission
• April 13, 1987
(9: 20) E. ALPINE ESTATES 2ND ADDITION, by R.M. Feerick Associates. Request
for Zoning District Change from R1-22 to R1-13.5 on 8.4 acres, and
Preliminary Plat of 8.4 acres into 14 single family lots and road
right-of-way. Location: East of Alpine Trail, south of the
Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul railroad track. A public hearing.
(9:45) F. BRYANT POINTE, by Jyland Development, Inc. Request for Zoning
District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 20.7 acres, and Preliminary
Plat of 20.7 acres into 28 single family lots and road right-of-way.
Location : Southeast corner of Hennepin County Highway #62 and
Rowland Road. A public hearing.
(10: 15) G. EDEN PRAIRIE ENTERTAINMENT CENTER, by Brody Associates, Inc.
Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 15.2
acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with variances on
15.2 acres with Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Reg-Service
on 1.42 acres and Zoning District Amendment within the C-Reg-Service
District on 5.0 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 6.42 acres into one
lot for construction of a theater/restaurant complex. Location:
Southwest quadrant of Eden Road and Glen Lane. A public hearing.
V. OLD BUSINESS
VI . NEW BUSINESS
VI I . PLANNER' S REPORT
VIII . ADJOURNMENT
*NOTE: THE TIMES LISTED ABOVE ARE TENTATIVE, AND MAY BE SIGNIFICANTLY EARLIER,
OR LATER, THAN LISTED.
MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, April 13, 1987
City Council Chambers
7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ed Schuck, Rich Anderson, Julianne Bye, Christine
Dodge, Douglas Fell, Chuck Ruebling
MEMBER ABSENT: Robert Hallett
STAFF PRESENT: Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Donald Uram, Assistant
Planner; Kate Karnas, Administrative Assistant
Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION:
Motion was made by Ruebling, seconded by Bye, to approve the agenda as
printed.
Motion carried--6-0-0
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
None.
III. MINUTES
MOTION:
Motion was made by Dodge, seconded by Anderson, to approve the minutes of
the March 9, 1987, Planning Commission meeting as written.
Motion carried--3-0-3 (Chairman Schuck, Bye, and Ruebling abstained)
MOTION:
Motion was made by Dodge, seconded by Bye, to approve the minutes of the
March 23, 1987, Planning Commission meeting as written.
Motion carried--6-0-0
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. SUBURBAN NATIONAL BANK/PRESERVE MEDICAL BUILDING, by Supplee's 7-Hi
Enterprises, Inc. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from
Low Density Residential to Office on 1.09 acres, Zoning District
Change from Rural to Office on 1.09 acres with variances to be
Planning Commission Minutes 2 April 13, 1987
reviewed by the Board of Appeals and Preliminary Plat of 1.09 acres
into one lot for the construction of a two-story office building.
Location: South of Anderson Lakes Parkway, west of County Road #18.
A continued public meeting.
Planner Franzen, stated that this item had been continued several times, both
at the Planning Commission and City Council . He reported that, at its last
meeting, the City Council removed the item from their agenda, returning the
item to the proponents. Staff was recommending that the Commission close
this meeting, as well , returning the item to the proponent until such time
as adequate information was available for review by the City.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Anderson, to return the item to the
proponent, without prejudice, until such time as additional information was
available for review by the City.
Motion carried--6-0-0
B. LUNDS CENTER, by Commercial Partners, Inc. Request for Zoning
District Change from Rural to C-Reg-Ser on 6.1 acres with variances
to be reviewed by Board of Appeals, Preliminary Platting of 6.1
acres into one lot and road right-of-way for construction of 58,108
square feet of commercial uses. Location: Southeast corner of
Franlo Road and Prairie Center Drive. A continued public hearing.
Planner Franzen reported that the Commission had continued this item at its
meeting of March 9, 1987, pending receipt of additional information
regarding traffic generation for this use within the Major Center Area.
Since that time, proponents had provided Staff with detailed traffic
information supporting their proposed development. The City's traffic
consultants reviewed the information and concluded that, if the Floor Area
Ratio was kept to 0.2, or 55,682 sq. ft., the use would meet the traffic
standards set for the Major Center Area by the original study, including the
reduction by 20%.
Planner Franzen stated that the proponents had contacted Staff earlier in
the day, stating that they now had an opportunity to add property to the
overall site. He noted that Staff had not been able to review the revised
plan in detail prior to the meeting.
Mr. David Shea, Shea Architects, representing proponent, stated that the
proponents did not favor reducing the square footage of the retail building
to the east of the Lund's store on the property; therefore, they were
interested in obtaining additional property to avoid the need for such a
reduction. Mr. Shea explained that Lund's was concerned that there be
enough additional retail to make a good "center" in this location as a
complimentary use to their business.
Mr. Shea reviewed the proposed amendment to the development with the
Commission. He indicated that the property proposed for addition to the
development was located to the south-southwest of the subject site. He also
presented a revised site plan which showed different configurations for the
• Planning Commission Minutes 3 April 13, 1987
structures and different locations for the parking for the development,
based on the different size and shape of the property with the added parcel .
Mr. Shea stated that he had been advised by City Staff that the additional
property was guided for residential use, not commercial, and that it would
be necessary for the proponents to process a Comprehensive Guide Plan
Amendment for the added parcel, as well as a rezoning and platting request,
prior to issuance of any building permits for the property. Planner Franzen
added that it would be approximately 30 days before the proponents would be
able to appear before the Commission with such a request due to the fact
that there were hearing deadlines that needed to be met prior to an official
hearing taking place on such a request. He noted that there were also many
other completed projects that would be scheduled on the upcoming agendas
before consideration of any new projects.
Mr. Shea stated that it was his understanding that the traffic review was
done based on the original 58,102 sq. ft. proposed for the development in
the two structures (Lund's grocery and the retail structure). Planner
Franzen stated that, while the traffic review had been done based on the
original 58,102 sq. ft., that amount of square footage on the property did
not meet the requirements for maximum floor area ratio for the district. He
stated that the floor area ratio allowed in this district was 0.2, which was
exceeded by approximately 2,500 sq. ft. with the proposed development.
Planner Franzen stated that the proponents had not given any justification
for the proposed variance to the floor area ratio, and that Staff was not
recommending support of such a variance. Also, it would be necessary for
the Board of Appeals to review the proposed variance.
Ruebling asked for an explanation of the difference in conclusions between
the City's original traffic study for this site within Major Center Area
(MCA) and the traffic study supplement prepared by the proponent. He stated
that he was concerned that the original study indicated that this use would
result in too much traffic from this site, while the information provided by
the proponents indicated that the recommendations for levels of traffic from
the original MCA traffic study would not be exceeded.
Planner Franzen explained that there major difference between the two
studies was the scope of the review. He stated that the original MCA
traffic study was prepared for a very large area, and that it functioned
well as a base of information, which had always been the intent of that
study. The traffic information provided by the proponent had been prepared
for this site, in particular, and focused on the specifics of this use. One
other difference between the two studies was that the original MCA study
used one average trip generation rate for all commercial uses within the
MCA. This use, now that it was identified specifically, was dealt with
specifically in the traffic study information provided by the proponent.
Planner Franzen stated that it was Staff's opinion that the proposed grocery
store was an appropriate use in the MCA, and, after review of the specific
traffic information, Staff was satisfied that a strip retail commercial use
would generate much more traffic than the proposed grocery store. Planner
Franzen stated that, just as with other studies that are used as base
information, it is necessary to update such information on a regular basis
as things change. He noted that the original traffic study was in the
• Planning Commission Minutes 4 April 13, 1987
process of being updated based on the exact amount of development that had
taken place in the MCA since the time the study was orginally completed.
Anderson asked if the exit from the property to Franlo Road would help
alleviate traffic onto Prairie Center Drive. Mr. Jim Benshoof, traffic
consultant, stated that their review of this use was based upon the fact
that there was an access to Franlo Road for the property. He stated that it
was important for relief of traffic impacts on Prairie Center Drive.
Anderson stated that he preferred the plan with property added, but that he
preferred to have Staff's review of the item. Bye stated that she
concurred.
Chairman Schuck stated that it appeared that the floor area ratio was
greater than 0.2 even at the reduced square footage of 55,682 sq. ft.
Planner Franzen stated that the City was requiring dedication of right-of-
way above and beyond normal requirements for the intersection of Franlo Road
and Prairie Center Drive. He stated that, due to the "extra" requirement,
the City was giving the proponent "density credit" from that portion of the
right-of-way considered to be excessive. Planner Franzen added that the
amended plan with added property, at 72,000+ sq. ft., was designed at a 0.2
floor area ratio.
With respect to the amended plan with added property, Anderson asked what
type of use would be in the small building located in the northwest corner
of the lot. Mr. Shea responded that this was proposed for a detached
financial facility.
Ruebling stated that, with respect to a variance for floor area ratio, he
was uncomfortable recommending approval of such a plan given that there was
no hardship presented, other than the financial situation for the developer.
He stated that there appeared to be alternatives available and that he did
not believe the a hardship was warranted.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Anderson, 'to close the public hearing.
Motion carried--6-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Anderson, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Commercial Partners, Inc., for Zoning
District Change from Rural to C-Reg-Ser on 6.1 acres, with variances to be
reviewed by the Board of Appeals, for a Lund's Grocery Store and a retail
center, based on plans dated March 2, 1987, subject to the recommendations
of the Staff Reports dated March 6, and April 10, 1987.
Motion carried--6-0-0
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Anderson, to recommend to the City
Planning Commission Minutes 5 April 13, 1987
Council approval of the request of Commercial Partners, Inc.,` for
Preliminary Plat approval for a Lund's Grocery Store and a retail center,
based on plans dated March 2, 1987, subject to the recommendations of the
Staff Reports dated March 6, and April 10, 1987.
Motion carried--6-0-0
C. ANDERSON'S GARDEN CENTER, by Don C. and Rita L. Anderson and H.J.
Nyhammer. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low
Density Residential to Community Commercial on 2.2 acres, Zoning
District Change from R1-22 to C-Commercial on 1.6 acres and from R1-
22 to R1-13.5 on 1.86 acres, with variances to be reviewed by the
Board of Appeals, and Preliminary Plat of 3.1 acres into six lots
and road right-of-way. Location: Southeast corner of County Road
#4 and Valley View Road, west of Westgate Lane. A continued public
hearing.
This item was continued from the March 23, 1987, meeting for resolution of
several issues by the proponent, including transition to the existing
residential neighborhood and information regarding traffic patterns and
traffic volumes for such uses.
A portion of the request included a "housekeeping item" for a Comprehensive
Guide Plan Amendment and rezoning for that portion of the Little Red Grocery
Store property which was not covered by the legal description at the time of
publication several years ago.
Mr. Fred Hoisington, representing the Andersons, reviewed the revisions to
the plans since the last meeting, noting that the screening and landscaping
plan had been revised for the south end of the property. In addition, he
stated that they had reviewed comparable garden stores in other communities,
to determine what their traffic forecasts were.
Planner Franzen reviewed the findings of the Staff Report of April 10, 1987,
with the Commission. He stated that, after review of information from other
communities, and further examination of the proposed use, the surrounding
area, and the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan, Staff was recommending that
this use not be located on this property.
Planner Franzen stated that there were four major findings, plus several
others, upon which Staff was basing their recommendation: 1) There was land
available within the Major Center Area for this use; 2) A garden center was
considered a Community-Commercial use, not a Neighborhood-Commercial use
based on its clientele. In this type of district, the garden center would
be able to take advantage of over-flow parking areas, instead of depending
on adjacent residential streets for extra parking needs; 3) There are no
industry standards for garden centers and, over a long period of time,
situations such as outdoor storage become difficult to control ; and, 4) The
existing Comprehensive Guide Plan designation for this property was Low
Density Residential, has been depended upon by the existing residents, and
is the highest and best use of the property.
Mr. Hoisington stated that he initially felt there was a difference of
opinion between the proponent and the Staff, but that he was now concerned
Planning Commission Minutes 6 April 13, 1987
that the Staff did not understand the parameters of the use proposed by
Anderson's Garden Center. He stated that he was concerned that Staff was
comparing the proposed use to that of Lyndale Gardens, or Frank's Nursery &
Crafts. Mr. Hoisington stated that the proposed use was smaller in scale
that either of these two businesses. He stated that other differences
included the fact that the larger uses had much more outdoor storage, high
floor area ratios, bulk products for sale, and little, if any, setback to
adjacent uses. He noted that one example of the difference in size of the
uses was that the larger uses advertised in the Minneapolis Star and
Tribune, while the Andersons advertised only in the local Eden Prairie
Sailor and the Eden Prairie News. Mr. Hoisington stated that the larger
uses were not family owned and operated businesses, but that for the
Anderson Garden Center, the only employees outside of the family were high
school students from Eden Prairie.
With respect to location of the use within the Major Center Area, Mr.
Hoisington stated that of the 240 acres of property within the Major Center
Area, there may be a location available; however, the cost of land in this
area was approximately $5.00 per square foot, and there was a five-acre
minimum lot size requirement for the zoning district proposed, adding that
this was too much money to spend for the property.
Mr. Hoisington indicated that the proponents were not a neighborhood use,
but that they were not a regional use, either, as they serviced the
residents of Eden Prairie, mainly.
With respect to the density of the single family area proposed as part of
the development, Mr. Hoisington indicated that they did not feel that the
one additional unit would create a negative impact on the existing single
family neighborhood, since it would be a home at least as valuable as those
existing in the neighborhood. The capacity of City utilities would not be
exceeded by the additional unit, nor would there be devaluation of the
existing homes due to the comparable nature of the homes.
Regarding parking spaces, Mr. Hoisington stated that the proponents could
not place 50 parking spaces on the property because they were placing so
much area into open space and setback area. He stated that proponents were
providing for 34 parking spaces on the property, but they had calculated
that they needed only 22 spaces based on the square footage of the
structure. Mr. Hoisington added that, if it was found by proponents that
they needed additional parking spaces, they would add them before the City
had to tell them they were needed because they did not want to cause any
problems for their customers.
With respect to the U-turns made on County Road #4, Mr. Hoisington stated
that there was no traffic hazard created by such turn movements. He stated
that even if the use grew by 50% beyond its current capacity, the amount of
traffic on County Road #4 would increase by less than 1%. Mr. Hoisington
stated that the proponents could not prepare the traffic study suggested
. because they could be out of business before the study would be completed.
Regarding the variances requested for the Andersons' business, Mr.
Hoisington stated that the it was the opinion of the proponents that it
would be better to ask for variances for the business and to have the
Planning Commission Minutes 7 April 13, 1987
residential area transition to the east, rather than to reduce the
transition area. Therefore, they chose to request variances for the
commercial use. He added that, due to economic considerations, it would
require that the homes to be built in the residential area be much greater
in value than those in the existing neighborhood if one lot was required to
be eliminated.
With respect to outside storage and control of it, Mr. Hoisington stated
that there were no guarantees that any use within the City would maintain an
attractive outside appearance and that he did not feel that the long term
use would be a problem on this property.
Mr. Hoisington said that there would be no difficulties created in terms of
setting of a precedent for additional properties to become commercial in
this neighborhood, since there were no additional vacant parcels available.
Mr. Greg Stickney, Edina Realty, representing proponent, stated that he did
not feel this property would be easy to sell as a residential use in the
future. He stated that he believed that the volume of traffic on County
Road #4, the proximity to the existing commercial use, and the amount of
activity that takes place.in the City park to the west, would all detract
from the ability to sell this property as residential . Mr. Stickney stated
that he felt the landscaping buffer shown between the proposed commercial
use along County Road #4 and the proposed single family use to the east
would make, this property easier to sell .
Planner Franzen responded to the comments of the proponent. He stated that,
during discussions with other communities, the questions asked were with
respect to garden stores, in general, and about small garden stores,
specifically. He stated that the other communities were asked about
parking, traffic, outside storage, and impact on existing residential uses
adjacent to any such garden stores. Planner Franzen stated that the
response from other communities was that outdoor storage was difficult to
control and that parking for such uses, particularly when adjacent to
existing residential neighborhoods, often spilled over onto the adjacent
residential streets.
Anderson stated that it appeared that, when the garden shop moved from the
Prairie Village Mall to a free-standing site, that their business could ,
change dramatically and that the volume of business would increase. He
stated that his experience was that such businesses were extremely busy
during the Spring and that parking was difficult for customers. Anderson
added that he concurred with the findings of the Staff Report regarding the
proposed development.
Ruebling stated that, based on the information provided at the previous
meeting, he felt that there may be an opportunity to create a good
relationship between the use proposed and the existing neighborhood.
However, based on the information provided at this meeting, the question had
become whether any commercial use was appropriate in this location at all .
He stated that he had concluded that a commercial use was not appropriate on
this site and that he believed the residential development of the property,
with lots backing up to County Road #4, was probably the best use for the
site.
Planning Commission Minutes 8 April 13, 1987
Bye , stated that she agreed with Anderson and Ruebling regarding the
inappropriateness of any commercial development on this property. She added
that the Little Red Grocery Store to the north had always been in this
location, and that it had no opportunity to expand beyond its current
boundaries. She expressed concern that the garden store would be increasing
its business when they moved and that it would eventually need more space to
operate. Bye noted that this entire area had been residential in concept
originally.
Ruebling asked why the Little Red Grocery Store had been guided for
Community Commercial use, instead of Neighborhood Commercial use. Planner
Franzen responded that the category of Neighborhood Commercial did not exist
at the time that the grocery store applied for a Comprehensive Guide Plan
change.
Dodge stated that she did not believe this was an appropriate use for the
site from the beginning. She stated that she concurred in the findings of
the Staff Report and that she felt that she supported the use of the
property as single family residential.
Ruebling stated that his concerns were based upon the appropriateness of
commercial use on this site, more so than the proposed use itself.
Fell stated that he concurred with the other commissioners regarding the
. appropriateness of a commercial land use on the site. He noted that Mr.
Anderson had stated in his presentation at the last meeting that this was a
"problem site," adding that he agreed that this was a problem parcel . Fell
stated that he also concurred with the other commissioners with respect to
single family residential being the most appropriate use for this site, as
the land was currently guided.
Chairman Schuck stated that he was sympathetic with the small business
person economically; however, he added that the Commission could not make a
decision based on the economics of the situation and that they needed to
consider the ramifications of commercial use on this property for the long
term. He stated that once the zoning was granted, the City would not be
able to control the type of commercial use on the property any longer.
Mr. E. F. Grover, 16390 Westgate Drive, asked if the proponents sold
Christmas trees from their store. Mr. Anderson responded that they did not.
Mr. Grover stated that he and his wife had consulted with a real estate
agent and had been told that it was a good possibility that there would be
strip retail use in this area if this property were allowed to be zoned as
commercial . Mr. Grover reiterated his concerns from the previous meeting
regarding noise, privacy, lighting, screening, and traffic. He stated that
he and his wife had always been assured that the property would remain as
residential by the owners of the land and that they had counted on this.
Mr. Don Anderson, 14312 Fairway Drive, read a letter from the City of
Minneapolis regarding garden centers in that City. He stated that their use
was a small one and that he believed that it fit well within a residential
area. Mr. Anderson presented a petition from residents along Westgate Trail
and Westgate Lane who were in favor of the proposed use on the property.
Planning Commission Minutes 9 April 13, 1987
0
Mr. Haakon Nyhammer, 7447 County Road #4, said that he sympathized with the
problems the Andersons were experiencing in needing to move and trying to
stay in Eden Prairie. He added that he felt that the positive reaction of
the majority of the neighborhood should be considered.
Ms. Harriet Bollig, 16251 Westgate Lane, said that she lived directly behind
the proposed use to the east and that she believed the garden store would be
an asset to this area.
Mr. Roger Skogman, 16251 Westgate Trail, stated that he felt that this Eden
Prairie business should be allowed to stay in Eden Prairie. He added that
he believed it would be a good use on the property.
Mr. Don Sorensen, 7121 Willow Creek Road, stated that he had lived in the
community for many years and that he was a former Planning Commission
member. He stated that he felt it was important to consider the long-term
impact of any decisions that would be made regarding a piece of property and
that he did not feel it would be appropriate to make any decisions based on
one owner, only. He stated that, once the zoning was granted by the City,
the City would lose its ability to review any future commercial uses that
met City Code requirements, which was not a desirable situation.
Ms. Joy Johnson, 16370 Westgate Drive, stated that she would be living
directly behind the proposed garden center, and that she believed the
proposed use would improve the area.
Mrs. Rita Anderson, 14312 Fairway Drive, stated that she believed that their
use served the neighborhood and that it could qualify as a neighborhood use.
She said that they would be staying in the same neighborhood within the
City, that they just wanted to transplant their use to a different location.
Mrs. Anderson emphasized that the proposed use was operated as a small
family business.
Mr. Gary Bendzick, 406 Spruce Circle, Jordan, Minnesota, stated that he had
spoken with Mr. Anderson regarding construction of the single family homes
on the portion of the property he proposed for single fmaily homes. He
stated that the size of homes he wanted to build would not require much land
in order to provide for a house and yard for a family. He said that, with
the buffer of the garden store between the proposed single family homes and
County Road #4, he did not feel there would be difficulty selling the homes;
however, if the lots had to back up directly to County Road #4, they would
be less desirable and more difficult to sell .
Ms. Peg Meehan, 16698 Terrey Pine Drive, daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Don
Anderson, stated that she and her family were the ones who operated the
business. She said that her long term plans were to expand the business,
but not in this location and not at this shop. She stated that she was the
"next generation" for this business and that she planned to be around for
the next 10-20 years so there would be some permanancy to the business.
Mr. Ken Johnson, 16370 Westgate Drive, said that he felt the proposal of the
Andersons would be beneficial to everyone in the neighborhood.
Mrs. Rhoda Grover, 16390 Westgate Drive, stated that none of the other
Planning Commission Minutes 10 April 13, 1987
•
neighbors would be directly adjacent to the parking area, like they would
be. She reiterated her concerns for privacy of their yard and home with a
business being located directly adjacent to their lot.
Ruebling asked if the Andersons had considered other parcels which were
already designated for Community Commercial uses in the community for this
use. Mr. Anderson stated that they had, but that the costs were high. He
said that the other major problem was that of outside storage. He indicated
that it was difficult to operate in the Prairie Village Mall currently
because of this situation. Mr. Anderson stated that he had looked at the
possibility of operating within an Industrial district, as well , but that
there were restrictions either on outside storage, or on the amount of
retail sales allowed which made such a choice prohibitive. He noted that
his use was the only one in the Twin Cities Area that was currently operated
within an existing mall , that the others were all free-standing uses.
Bye said that there were no guarantees, even with a family-owned and
operated business. She said that she felt it was important that the
decisions made regarding this proposal be made with the long-term impacts in
mind, and that impact of zoning the property commercial would be very
significant for this property and the neighborhood for a long time to come.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Dodge, seconded by Fell , to close the public hearing.
Motion carried--6-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Dodge, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City Council
denial of the request of Don and Rita Anderson for Comprehensive Guide Plan
Amendment from Low Density Residential to Community Commercial on 1.0 acre,
Zoning District Change from R1-22 to Community Commercial on 1.29 acres, and
Preliminary Plat of 3.1 acres into six lots based on the findings listed in
the Staff Report of April 10, 1987.
Motion carried--6-0-0
The Commission discussed the "housekeeping item" of reguiding and rezoning
all of the property of the Little Red Store to the appropriate land use
designation and zoning district. Ruebling stated that he felt it would be
most appropriate, now that the Neighborhood Commercial District existed, to
reguide and rezone the property Neighborhood Commercial, instead of
Community Commercial . Other Commissioners concurred.
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Ruebling, seconded by Anderson, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Haakon Nyhammer for Comprehensive Guide
Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Neighborhood Commerical on
1.01 acres and Zoning District Change from Community Commercial to
Neighborhood Commercial on 0.7 acres and from R1-22 to Neighborhood
Commercial on 0.31 acres for the Little Red Grocery Store, based on the
Planning Commission Minutes 11 April 13, 1987
i
findings of the Staff Reports of March 20, and April 10, 1987.
Motion carried--6-0-0
Mr. Hoisington asked the Commission if the reasons for their vote were based
on the use, itself, or whether it was based on a commercial use of any kind
be located on this parcel . The Commission members discussed their reasons
with Mr. Hoisington, reiterating their comments during the hearing portion
meeting. Generally, the Commission members indicated concern about any
commercial use being located on this property.
(Chairman Schuck left the meeting at 10:00 p.m. ; Bye assumed the Chair.)
D. WILLOW CREEK 3RD ADDITION, by Joel R. Harding, Kathleen J. Harding,
Elaine L. Sorensen and Robert 0. Naegele. Request for Re-platting
of approximately eight acres into five lots, three outlots, and road
right-of-way. Location: West of Bryant Lake Drive, east of Bryant
Lake, and south of Willow Creek Road. A public hearing.
Mr. Don Sorensen, representing proponents, explained that the request
involved the rearrangement of lot lines within the overall plat in order to
preserve trees along a common trail within the platted area.
Planner Franzen stated that City Staff considered this mainly a
"housekeeping" item, but that the platting process was necessary in order to
receive appropriate easements along the new lot lines.
Acting Chairman Bye asked for comments, or questions, from members of the
audience. There were none.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Dodge, seconded by Anderson, to close the public hearing.
Motion carried--5-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Dodge, seconded by Ruebling, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Joel R. and Kathleen J. Harding, Elaine
L. Sorensen and Robert 0. Naegele, for preliminary plat of approximately
eight acres into five lots and road right-of-way, based on plans dated March
26, 1987, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated April 10,
1987.
Motion carried--5-0-0
E. ALPINE ESTATES 2ND ADDITION, by R. M. Feerick Associates. Request
for Zoning District Change from R1-22 to R1-13.5 on 8.4 acres, and
Preliminary Plat of 8.4 acres into 14 single family lots and road
right-of-way. Location: East of Alpine Trail, south of the
Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul railroad track. A public hearing.
Planner Uram stated that this was a different single family residential
Planning Commission Minutes 12 April 13, 1987
proposal than the one reviewed by the Commission over one year ago. He
indicated that it appeared that the majority of the issues had been resolved
with this site design.
Mr. Richard Feerick, proponent, stated that he was aware of the previous
concerns regarding development of this property and that he had endeavored
to have a plan designed that would be responsive to those concerns, in
particular, preservation of trees, and grading on the property. Mr. Feerick
stated that the homes would be in the price range of $160,000-$210,000. He
added that he had spoken to the property owner to the east, Mr. Anderson,
regarding extension of sanitary sewer across his property in order to
service the Alpine Estates site. Mr. Feerick also stated that he had no
difficulties with the recommendations of the Staff Report of April 10, 1987.
Planner Uram reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report
of April 10, 1987. In addition to standard recommendations regarding
sanitary sewer, water main, erosion control, park dedication fees, and
ordinance requirements, the report reflected concerns regarding a tree
inventory for tree replacement according to the City's tree replacement
policy, relocation of the terminus of the Alpine Trail extension to the
north to provide access to the property to the east, and the need for
application to the Board of Appeals for lot depth variances for two lots
adjacent to the railroad tracks.
Mr. Dwight Harvey, 16190 Alpine Way, stated that he was generally in favor
of this revised plan for the development. He added that his only remaining
concern was that the property to the east not be developed prematurely and
that sanitary sewer extension through the property to the east not destroy
the wildlife area established there currently.
Planner Uram explained that it would be a decision for the City Council as
to whether sanitary sewer should be extended at this time through the
property to the east in order to service this site.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Ruebling, seconded by Fell , to close the public hearing.
Motion carried--5-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Ruebling, seconded by Fell , to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of R. M. Feerick Associates for Zoning
District Change from R1-22 to R1-13.5 for 8.4 acres for Alpine Estates 2nd
Addition, based on plans dated March 31, 1987, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated April 10, 1987.
Motion carried--5-0-0
• MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Ruebling, seconded by Fell , to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of R. M. Feerick Associates for Preliminary
Planning Commission Minutes 13 April 13, 1987
Plat of 8.4 acres into 14 single family lots and road right-of-way for
Alpine Estates 2nd Addition, based on plans dated March 31, 1987, subject to
the recommendations of the Staff Report dated April 10, 1987.
Motion carried--5-0-0
F. BRYANT POINTE, by Jyland Development, Inc. Request for Zoning
District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 20.7 acres, and Preliminary
Plat of 20.7 acres into 28 single family lots and road right-of-way.
Location: Southeast corner of Hennepin County Highway #62 and
Rowland Road. A public hearing.
Mr. Bob Carlson, proponent, reviewed the proposed development with the
Commission. He gave a brief review of the site characteristics.
Planner Uram noted that the proponent was requesting R1-13.5 zoning, but
that the lots generally met the requirements of the R1-22 District in terms
of size. He stated that the proponent-had designed the plat to be sensitive
to the location of existing trees on the property. Other than standard
recommendations regarding sanitary sewer, watermain, erosion control, park
dedication, and tree replacement, the Staff Report included recommendations
regarding the need for a special assessment agreement and noise attenuation
from the future Crosstown Highway along the north border of the property.
Ruebling asked about the need for Outlot A and who would be responsible for
the maintenance of the outlot. Mr. Carlson responded that this was done for
the purpose of meeting average lot depth requirements and also would be the
location of an entrance monument to the subdivision. He stated that this
would be a "no maintenance" lot set up as a rock bed, with the sign located
within the rock bed.
Acting Chairman Bye asked for comments, or questions, from members of the
audience. There were none.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Fell, seconded by Anderson, to close the public hearing.
Motion carried--5-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Fell , seconded by Anderson, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Jyland Development, Inc., for Zoning
District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 20.7 acres for Bryant Pointe, based
on revised plans dated April 9, 1987, subject to the recommendations of the
Staff Report dated April 10, 1987.
Motion carried--5-0-0
• MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Fell , seconded by Anderson, to recommend to the City
, Council approval of the request of Jyland Development, Inc., for Preliminary
Planning Commission Minutes 14 April 13, 1987
•
Plat of 20.7 acres into 28 single family lots and road right-of-way for
Bryant Pointe, based on revised plans dated April 9, 1987, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated April 10, 1987.
Motion carried--5-0-0
G. EDEN PRAIRIE ENTERTAINMENT CENTER, by Brody Associates, Inc. Request
for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 15.2 acres,
Planned Unit Development District Review with variances on 15.2
acres with Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Reg-Service on
1.42 acres and Zoning District Amendment within the C-Reg-Service
District on 5.0 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 6.42 acres into one
lot for construction of a theater/restaurant complex. Location:
Southwest quadrant of Eden Road and Glen Lane. A public hearing.
Mr. Norm Brody, proponent, reviewed the plans with the Commission, noting
that the building would be constructed mainly of brick and glass. He stated
that the intended tenants would be Plitt Theaters and Ciatti 's Restaurant.
Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff
Report of April 10, 1987. He stated that the proposed use was considered
appropriate for the Major Center Area and that there were many good
characteristics about the site plan, landscaping, signage, etc. However,
the major concern regarding this proposal was that of parking availability.
He noted that City Code required that the parking be provided on the site,
which left two alternatives for the proponent: 1) build a parking deck to
provide the necessary parking for the amount of building square footage; or,
2) reduce the square footage of the uses so that the site would be adequate
in size to provide the necessary parking.
Planner Franzen stated that the proponents had suggested alternatives for
off-site parking in other parking lots of existing buildings along Glen Lane
and Eden Road. However, in all cases, pedestrians would be required to
cross four-lane roads in order to access the site. Staff's opinion was that
this was not acceptable due to safety considerations.
Mr. Brody stated that he his tenants did not feel that the parking required
by Code would be needed by them. Planner Franzen stated that this had been
discussed with the proponents, but that, based on the City's analysis of the
parking for these uses, Staff was recommending that there be enough property
available on the site in order to allow for a "proof of parking" plan if the
need for additional spaces came about in the future.
Mr. Brody referred to an agreement between the proponents and Kinder Care,
the use located immediately to the south of the proposed development. He
stated that he was also making arrangements for use of the parcel directly
west of the Food Fare, north of the proposed development, across Eden Road,
for the purpose of employee parking, if the City found this acceptable. Mr.
Brody stated that, if this was not acceptable, they would be willing to
• construct the parking deck, as his tenants were anxious to build in this
location in Eden Prairie.
Ruebling stated that he would prefer to see the parking deck built. He
stated that the alternative of using the Kinder Care parking lot did not
Planning Commission Minutes 15 April 13, 1987
•
really solve the problem, nor come close enough to make up the deficiency in
the number of parking spaces, making the parking deck the most reasonable
alternative.
Anderson asked if all the parking would have to be built at this time.
Planner Franzen responded that it would not be necessary to construct all
the parking at ground level at this time but that Staff would recommend that
the deck be constructed immediately. -
Fell asked where the parking deck would be located with respect to the other
structures on the property. Mr. Brody responded that the deck would be
located on the south side of the structures shown. Planner Franzen stated
that he felt this could be an attractive addition to the site due to the
fact that the parking deck could be built into the hill on the property.
Acting Chairman Bye asked for comments, or questions, from members of the
audience. There were none.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Anderson, seconded by Fell, to continue the public
hearing to the April 27, 1987, Planning Commission meeting for review of the
amended plans, and directing Staff to publish the item for Council review at
its meeting of May 5, 1987.
Motion carried--5-0-0
V. OLD BUSINESS
None.
VI. NEW BUSINESS
None.
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
None.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Ruebling, seconded by Anderson.
Acting Chairman Bye adjourned the meeting at 11:05 p.m.