Loading...
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.