Planning Commission - 01/24/2005 APPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY,JANUARY 24, 2005 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER
Council Chambers
8080 Mitchell Road
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Ken Brooks, Larry Kacher, Vicki Koenig, Kathy
Nelson, Peter Rocheford, Fred Seymour, Ray
Stoelting, Jon Stoltz, William Sutherland
STAFF MEMBERS: Stu Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources
Al Gray, City Engineer
Mike Franzen, City Planner
Regina Herron, Planner
Julie Krull, Recording Secretary
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - ROLL CALL
Chair Stoelting called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Absent: Brooks and Koenig
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION by Nelson, seconded by Sutherland, to approve the agenda. Motion carried
7-0.
III. MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 10, 2005
Stoelting requested that Board Members be changed to Commission Members.
MOTION by Nelson, seconded by Sutherland, to approve the minutes. Motion carried
7-0.
IV. PUBLIC MEETINGS
V. INFORMATIONAL MEETING
V1. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Planning Commission Minutes
January 24, 2005
Page 2 of 10
A. HERITAGE PINES (a continued public hearing) (2004-31) by David W.
Durst. Request for Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Medium
Density Residential on 1.65 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5
on 1.65 acres, Site Plan Review on 1.65 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 1.65 acres
into 12 lots and road right of way. Location: 17621 Pioneer Trail.
David Durst, project proponent for Heritage Pines, introduced two individuals
who made the presentation for the guide plan change to Heritage Pines. Eric
Johnson addressed the tree issue and additional parking spaces. Tim Nelson
addressed the architectural design of the development.
Eric Johnson, landscape architect and project manager for the project, stated that
at the last meeting there were two issues discussed that led to the continuance of
the project. The first issue was the guest parking spaces for the project. Initially,
the development planned for six guest parking spaces. The Board stated at the
previous meeting that they would like to see additional guest parking spaces. Mr.
Johnson stated that they have been able to break up the parking and in so doing,
created four spaces at the entrance into the development and four more additional
spaces by the second unit.
Mr. Johnson stated that the second issue was that of the existing trees on site. He
stated that he has had a number of conversations with Mr. Durst, as well as
members of Staff, and that they do agree with the staff report and the 252 inches of
the existing trees and also the tree replacement for the site. He stated that the
current plans do not reflect that number but that they do agree with that number
and will work on that as part of the packet for the City Council.
Tim Nelson projected an overhead illustration of the site and explained the
exterior elevations and the colors of the units. He stated that after the last
meeting, he analyzed the drawings and thought the style of the door was
coming off in a barn-like appearance and the reproduction of the colors added
even more rust color. He stated that he felt that was a valid concern and
now they went back to the cleaner colors and re-drew the plans so that they
match the elevation.
Stoelting asked Franzen to review the staff report. Franzen stated that the
staff recommends approval according to items 1, 2, and 3 on page 3 of the
staff report.
Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. There was no public input.
Stoelting asked if there were any questions or additional comments for the Staff.
Planning Commission Minutes
January 24, 2005
Page 3 of 10
Nelson stated that she would like to commend the project proponent on the re-
drawings for this site. She stated that they looked very nice and were clear on
intention and she appreciated the extra parking spaces. Nelson stated that she
appreciated their consideration of their comments and hard work. Stoltz
echoed Nelson's comments about the drawings and stated that he received a
much better feel of what the project proponent was trying to accomplish.
Rocheford stated that the architects also did a good job on the drawings and
asked what they were doing for fire protection for each of the units and if each
building would have their own water. Mr. Durst stated that they have been
working with Allen Nelson and that each unit would be sprinkled individually.
Rocheford asked if each unit would have their own individual water meter.
Mr. Durst stated that they would each have their own water meter.
MOTION by Rocheford, seconded by Nelson, to close the public hearing.
Motion carried 7-0.
MOTION by Rocheford, seconded by Kacher, to recommend approval of Request
for Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density
Residential on 1.65 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 on 1.65
acres, Site Plan Review on 1.65 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 1.65 acres into 12
lots and road right-of-way based on plans dated January 19, 2005, and subject to
the recommendations of the staff report dated January 21, 2005.
Motion carried 7-0.
B. VARIANCE#2005-01 Petition of Theodore and Gail Dean. This is a variance
request for rear yard setback from 25 feet to 11.8 feet in the R1-22 Zoning
District. Location: 6612 Golden Ridge Drive.
Gail Dean, resident of 6612 Golden Ridge Drive, requested a variance for the
setback of their garage. She and her husband, Theodore, have lived there
since 2000 and they would like a garage. She stated that they came up with a
plan to put the garage back into the yard. Mrs. Dean stated that they would
like to make it more convenient and more assessable for the way they live
every day. She stated that was the reason that they put the garage in the back.
They also want to wrap the deck around the home, but will be keeping the
footprint of the home as is.
Stoelting asked her to explain any hardships associated with meeting the
requirements of City regulations and rules. Mrs. Dean stated that the hardship
was that the garage is a tuck-under and is non-conforming. She stated that
was the way that the home was put on the lot, at an angle, and she stated that it
was very difficult to put up a garage within the setbacks. She stated that they
Planning Commission Minutes
January 24, 2005
Page 4 of 10
feel that was their hardship. Mrs. Dean illustrated the distance of the garage to
the property by using an overhead projection.
Stoelting reiterated Mrs. Dean by stating that due to the angle of the house and
positioning of the garage, that was their hardship. Mrs. Dean stated that they
wanted to aesthetically conform to the other houses in the neighborhood.
Jeff Metzger, friend of the family and project manager, stated that one of their
concerns, when they upgraded the survey, was that the survey did not match
the lot. He stated that in the process of the original building of the house,
somebody turned the house on the property. Instead of the house facing the
road, the front door is on the side. He stated the Dean's driveway is on the
back end and it is approximately 5' by 6' and is impossible to get a vehicle in
there. He stated that they basically have to come through the basement to get
up to their house simply because of the way the house was put on the lot
originally. Mr. Metzger stated that is why the Deans wanted to re-do the
driveway and put in a new garage. The hardship would be the convenience of
using their house without going through the basement every time they want to
go into the house.
Herron stated that the staff recommends approval because the variance would
not significantly alter the character of the neighborhood. She stated that the
unusual shape of the lot and the location of the existing house will make it
impossible to build a three car attached garage. The variance will allow for a
visual improvement of the home on the lot and the neighborhood would also
benefit.
Stoelting asked Fox if there were any issues with the trees on the lot. Fox
stated that conifer trees shield the east, north and part of the northwest side,
however, they were planted about 3 to 5 feet off center. He stated that for
the health of the trees, they needed to be thinned out. Fox stated that
by putting a driveway on the property it would not affect the trees; in fact,he
stated, it would be beneficial for them to be thinned out.
Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. There was no public input.
Nelson asked Mrs. Dean if they considered bringing the garage closer to the
front so it would meet the 15 feet setback instead of placing it flush with the
garage. Mrs. Dean stated that they have not considered it because she felt it
would look awkward.
Rocheford stated that it is an appropriate addition for the house in this
neighborhood and that it does not have any impact on anyone in the rear of the
lot.
Planning Commission Minutes
January 24, 2005
Page 5 of 10
Stoelting asked, in regards to the variance, if the back of the property line that
tends to slope off, is public land. Herron stated that it is private property and
that specific property wraps around in an L shape and the side of their unit
faces 6612 Golden Ridge Drive. Park property is behind the north property.
Stoelting asked if the variance request was associated with the adjacent park
property. Herron stated that the reason that the Deans are asking for the
variance is that their lot is very linear in shape and their front property line is
much longer than the width of their property. She stated that in most cases, a
typical residential lot is very narrow, approximately 50 feet in width by
150 feet in depth. Herron stated that their problem arises in the fact that they
do not have much of a rear yard.
Sutherland stated that the letter to the Community Planning Board stated that
they have discussed their plans with their neighbors. He asked Mrs. Dean to
explain that. Mrs. Dean stated that she had talked to her neighbor behind her
and he was supportive of the upgrade.
Sutherland asked about the house to the south, if they were supportive of the
change. Mrs. Dean stated that they did mention it to them and that they did
not seem to have an issue with the upgrade. She stated that she did not have
an opportunity to show them an illustration of the plan but that they were still
supportive of the change.
MOTION by Rocheford, seconded by Nelson, to close the public hearing.
Motion carried 7-0.
MOTION by Rocheford, seconded by Kacher, to recommend approval of a
request to permit a rear yard setback of 11'8" from the rear lot line. City code
requires a 25'rear yard setback in the R1-22 Zoning District based on plans dated
January 21, 2005, and subject to the recommendations of the staff report dated
January 21, 2005. Motion carried 7-0.
C. EDEN PRAIRIE INN POOL ADDITION (2005-4) by Eden Prairie
Lodging. L.L.C. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review
on 1.29 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on
1.29 acres, Zoning District Amendment within the Highway Commercial
District on 1.29 acres, Site Plan Review on 1.29 acres, and Preliminary Plat
of 1.29 acres into 1 lot. Location: 11500 West 78th Street.
Harvey Roch, co-owner of the property with Dennis Anderson, stated that they
are in the process of taking what was a Super 8 and upgrading the hotel. He
stated that they have just finished upgrading the lobby. They would like to
Planning Commission Minutes
January 24, 2005
Page 6 of 10
upgrade this hotel to a Best Western, which will require them to have a pool.
Mr. Roch stated that they concur with the staff report of the recommendations
needed for this addition.
Stoelting asked Franzen to review the staff report. Franzen stated the staff
recommends approval according to the conditions on page 3 of the staff report.
Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. There was no public input.
Stoelting asked about the existing storage shed and trash receptacle on the
north side of the property, and stated that it was his understanding that the
pool was going to be on the north side of the property. He asked if the
installation of the pool would cause movement of the storage shed and the
trash receptacle. Mr. Roch stated that they have talked with the Zoning and
Planning Staff and that they are contemplating moving the storage shed and
trash receptacle to the backside of the pool area, which would bring it out of
view. He stated that it would be attractively done in either brick or vinyl
upgrade.
Stoelting asked where it would be located. Mr. Roch stated it would be on the
backside of the pool area.
Stoelting asked if the north side of the pool would be paved and would there
be access. Mr. Roch stated that it would be paved and to the front of it there
would also be a patio area.
Nelson asked if there were any other upgrades to the hotel besides the lobby.
Mr. Roch stated everything inside the rooms have been re-done, except the
stools and the bathtubs. All the bathrooms have new sinks, faucets, ceramic
tile, and the whole interior has been painted. There have been new beds,
pictures, draperies, carpet and wardrobes replaced in all the rooms.
Nelson asked if this was part of a complete upgrade and change to the hotel.
Mr. Roch stated it was. Nelson stated that everything for the pool looked like
it complied with the regulations.
Seymour asked Franzen if the existing shed conformed to the City Code, and
asked if it was made of wood. Franzen stated that at the time it was built it
did conform,but after it was completed, the City did change the ordinance.
He stated that since they are moving, they would need to have it comply with
the current code.
Planning Commission Minutes
January 24, 2005
Page 7 of 10
Seymour stated that in the staff report it addressed the trash enclosure but did not
address anything about the shed. Seymour asked if the shed was used for trash or
storage. Mr. Roch stated it was not used for trash but rather lawn care items.
Seymour asked if that was going to be upgraded as well. Mr. Roch stated that
they just upgraded that and put on permanent siding.
MOTION by Rocheford, seconded by Nelson, to close the public hearing.
Motion carried 7-0.
MOTION by Stoltz, seconded by Nelson, to recommend approval of a request for
Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 1.29 acres, Planned Unit
Development District Review with waivers on 1.29 acres, Zoning District
Amendment within the Highway Commercial District on 1.29 acres, Site Plan
Review on 1.29 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 1.29 acres into 1 lot based on plans
dated January 10, 2005, and subject to the recommendations of the staff report
dated January 21, 2005. Motion carried 7-0.
D. DAIRY QUEEN GRILL AND CHILL, (2005-1) by Frauenshuh Companies.
Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Industrial to Neighborhood
Commercial on 1.09 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 7.2
acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 1.09 acres,
Zoning District Change from 1-2 to Neighborhood Commercial on 1.09
acres, Site Plan Review on 1.09 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 7.2 acres into 2 lots.
Location: County Road 4 and Terry Pine Drive
John Donnelly, with the Frauenshuh Companies Hospitality Group, stated that he
and Nick Speridies are present at the meeting to answer any questions that the
Staff had pertaining to their guide plan change.
Mr. Speridies stated that they are presenting the second of two projects. This
current project is located on County Road 4,just south of Burger King on
Highway 5. The site is off of the Terry Pine Drive culd-a-sac. The building
will be located more towards the center of the site. The previous project on
Aztec Drive shifted the building to one side. Mr. Speridies stated that by
having the single access off of Terry Pine Drive, circulating the traffic around,
satisfied requirements of stacking, and interfering with public ways. He stated
that they have complied with all of the requirements of the site in working
with Mr. Franzen and Ms. Herron. He stated that they would be widening
Terry Pine Drive, at the recommendation of the Engineering Staff. Mr.
Speridies stated that three of the issues suggested for approval this evening are
related to signage, which they have not yet submitted for permit. He stated
that they would continue to work on signage. In regards to the landscaping,he
stated that this site was subject to an increased landscape caliber inch count
Planning Commission Minutes
January 24, 2005
Page 8 of 10
due to the site adjacent to the south, the mini-storage facility, not having
completed all the landscaping. He stated that they would need to
accommodate for additional landscaping. Through the calculation of that
said number he stated that they need to add three 3-inch trees to the site plan.
Mr. Speridies said that the photographs in the packet are of the recently built
Grill and Chill in Hopkins. He stated it is the newest building type that they
are doing and that it was the best way for the Board to view the new concept
of the building.
Stoelting asked Mr. Speridies to go over the planned unit development
waivers, particularly the front yard parking setback on Terry Pine Drive from
35 feet to 24.67 feet and then the front yard-parking setback on County Road
4, from 17.42 feet to 14 feet.
Mr. Speridies stated that in working with Engineering and Transportation, it
was deemed necessary to change the right of way dimension of the existing
property line by an additional 10 feet to the north and 15 feet to the west. He
stated that the slope on this site makes it difficult to put in a flat parking lot.
He stated that they do have a retaining wall but they would need to reduce the
size of the site for the right-of-way. Mr. Speridies stated that rather than
continue to push the dimensions of the site plan, they left them as is, and that
is the reason for the variance. Stoelting reiterated that it is the right-of-way
that is causing the variance request.
Stoelting asked Herron to review the staff report.
Herron stated that there are two questions that the Planning Commission
should consider in regards to the variance. The first question is, should the
land remain industrial or should it be changed to neighborhood commercial.
Staff is in favor of this. The second question is, should the waivers for lot size
and parking setbacks be granted. Staff is in favor of this. Staff also
recommends approval according to the conditions on page 5 of the staff report.
Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. There was no public input.
Kacher asked Donnelly if they were associated with the Dairy Queen that
recently closed in Eden Prairie. Mr. Donnelly stated that they purchased the
Dairy Queen and ran it for approximately 24 hours and closed it at the end of
its lease term. It was not an owned property. That, in effect, opened up a
territory to find other sites and build restaurants.
Kacher asked if this site was better than the other site. Mr. Donnelly stated that
the other site had only 15 parking stalls and could only stack through the drive-
through. He stated that they are not a fast food restaurant,but are considered
Planning Commission Minutes
January 24, 2005
Page 9 of 10
casual dining; that they run the opposite percentages of drive-thru versus dine in.
He stated that they are about 30 percent drive-thru, and still want the concept of
the drive-thru for customer convenience. Mr. Donnelly said that they wanted to
find a property that they could own and one that was in a better location and have
the land area that they could build the building that they have designed.
Kacher asked Staff if there were any guidelines in terms of placing one similar
restaurant so close to another, which would be the Burger King. Franzen
stated that there was not.
Nelson commented on the building in the photo and said that the sign
comments need to be addressed. She stated that it has higher signs than what
the Staff typically sees,but understands that this is a photo of the Hopkins
Grill and Chill and not necessarily the same as the one in Eden Prairie.
Mr. Speridies stated that it would typically look like the photo,but the
comment about the signs exceeding the parapet edge depends on which city
the Grill and Chill is built in. He also stated that the do not construct a typical
pylon sign for the Grill and Chill, but have a stone pier that matches the stone
on the building and the signage pieces are placed on that. Mr. Speridies stated
that their signage consultants would be coming in at the time of permit to
to discuss that issue.
Nelson stated that the sign over the top of the parapet is the one that bothers
her the most, and does not meet what the City allows.
MOTION by Stoltz, seconded by Nelson, to close the public hearing.
Motion carried 7-0.
MOTION by Rocheford, seconded by Kacher, to recommend approval of a
request for Comprehensive guide Plan Change from Industrial to Neighborhood
commercial on 1.09 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 7.2
acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 1.09 acres,
Zoning District Change from I-2 to Neighborhood Commercial on 1.09 acres, Site
Plan Review on 1.09 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 7.2 acres into 2 lots based on
plans dated January 20, 2005 and subject to the recommendations of the staff
report dated January 21, 2005. Motion carried 7-0.
VII. MEMBERS' REPORTS
VIII. CONTINUING BUSINESS
IX. NEW BUSINESS
Planning Commission Minutes
January 24, 2005
Page 10 of 10
X. PLANNERS' REPORTS
Franzen stated that there are three items for the Planners' Reports. They are as follows:
1. Planning Commission applications are due February 11, for any member wishing to
renew their term.
2. On February 22, there is an opportunity to address Council Members; it is called Board
and Commission night.
3. There is a flyer in the packet addressing MCA Workshop on March 1. This is a joint
Planning Commission/City Council Meeting.
Rocheford asked Franzen whose term would be up. Franzen stated Ken Brooks, Vicki
Koenig, and Jon Stoltz.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Nelson, seconded by Rocheford, to adjourn the meeting.
Motion carried 7-0.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m.