Loading...
Planning Commission - 01/25/1999 APPROVED MINUTES CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY,JANUARY 25, 1999 7:00 P.M. CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road COMMISSION MEMBERS: Beverly Alexander,Kenneth E. Clinton,Laurence Dorn,Jr.,Randy Foote,Bill Habicht,Rebecca Lewis,Douglas Sandstad STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE: Kyle Halvorson STAFF MEMBERS: Mike Franzen, City Planner, Scott Kipp, Senior Planner,Al Gray, City Engineer, and Barbara Anderson, City Recorder I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE -ROLL CALL Chair Foote called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Clinton moved, seconded by Alexander,to approve the Agenda as published. Motion carried 6-0. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Dorn commented he wished to commend Recording Secretary Barbara Anderson for the excellent job on the Minutes of the last meeting,which he felt were very complex and difficult to make coherent. MOTION: Dorn moved, seconded by Sandstad,to approve the Minutes of the January 11, 1999 Planning Commission as submitted. Motion carried 5-0-2. Commissioners Habicht and Clinton abstained. IV. PUBLIC INFORMATIONAL MEETING A. ADC TELECOMMUNICATIONS by ADC Telecommunications. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 91.03 acres, Planned Unit Development district Review with waivers on 91.03 acres,Rezoning from Rural to I-5 Industrial on 91.03 acres, Preliminary Plat on 91.03 acres, Site Plan Review on 91.03 acres, and AUAR Review on 91.03 acres. Location: South of Technology Drive and west of Mitchell Road. Franzen noted that ADC Telecommunications would make a presentation on their plan, and then residents would be able to comment on the plan. Then the Planning Commission should identify issues to enable the proponents to refine their plan before coming back PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 25, 1999 Page 2 before the Commission with a request for approval. Wayne Stewart,Vice President of Operations for ADC Telecommunications and an Eden Prairie resident, described the company which has been in business for fifty years. They build communication equipment, and form strong ties to each community in which they locate, and have a high commitment to quality and safety. They have grown environmentally and it is now time for them to review their overall strategy to consolidate their facilities and construct a corporate headquarters on land they have owned in Eden Prairie for the past fifteen years. They envision a college-type campus, and the first phase will consist of two buildings and a parking facility. The employees which will be located in the facility will be technical and professional people who will be part of this community. They are very interested in the comments and suggestions that are made this evening, and he thanked the City Staff for their help and cooperation in consolidating their plans. Manos Guiness, Architect for the project, described the site and its amenities. The project was designed from the inside out, and the project will contain about 1 million square feet. Phase One consists of 430,000 square feet of office space and laboratories. He described the way they envision the project to grow to completion. He discussed the natural features on the site and how they designed the project to fit around the wetlands and the topography on the site. He discussed the traffic patterns on the site for the various phases of the project. All buildings will be connected by skyways or underground links. The buildings will be three stories in height. He discussed the ponds and wetlands on the site and showed renderings of the architectural style they propose to use. They intend to incorporate the existing wetlands and vegetation to preserve the look of the site as it presently exists. He showed photographs of the site and pointed out where the buildings would be located. The buildings will be approximately 50 feet in height because they are extensively using natural light and the best way to do this is to raise the floors. Dorn asked which buildings comprised the first phase and Guiness responded 90% of the area in the first phase will be office use and 10-15%will be laboratory environment. Foote asked where the four acres of wetlands that will be altered were located and Darrin Luzan, Civil Engineer for the project, illustrated their location on the site plan. He reviewed the wetland alteration plan and those areas which are proposed to be filled. Clinton asked about the wetland mitigation plan and Luzan briefly described the areas which will be mitigated and stated there will be off-site mitigation which has not yet been identified. Sandstad asked if they would include names on the plans when they were formally submitted, such as the architectects, engineers, etc. Habicht commented he was concerned about the south end of the project and the proximity of the parking structures to the adjacent residential properties. He asked about what would be done to provide screening for those residents and Guiness responded they plan to use berms and trees to provide screening to control the visual aspects of the parking decks. They will provide additional PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 25, 1999 Page 3 information on this when they formally submit their plans. They will have plantings on top of the berms to screen the parking decks from the adjacent neighborhoods. Sandstad asked to see the landscape plan and those were discussed. Foote asked for cross-sections and sight views of the parking structures from the south. Luzan commented that only about 1.5 stories of the parking decks would be visible above the berm, and those will be screened with plantings. Franzen reviewed the guiding on the site which is industrial and what could be built in this area. This development is office and manufacturing and staff felt it was a better use of this land given its location in the City. He discussed the wetlands and what should be preserved and what could be altered. The proponent has 4 acres they are planning to alter and will be mitigated both on and off the site. He discussed the traffic in this area and the roadway improvements which will be made. Alexander commented that filling wetlands will create fewer places for the runoff to go. She was upset by the destruction of the wetland. Gray explained that the City and the Watershed District have installed an outlet control structure which has been operating at the level which has been established as the higher level and is designed to restore this area to it's natural water level. There will be changes in the type of wildlife habitat which will be more conducive to waterfowl. The Stormwater Management Plan has less hardsurface area than would be created if this site were developed as an Industrial park. This plan has preserved a great deal of open space and natural wetland areas. Staff does not have concerns about managing runoff with this plan. The proponent has endeavored to minimize the impacts of this project on the wetlands. Alexander was concerned about the parking under the buildings which could have problems with the water levels in the areas adjacent to the wetlands. Foote invited public comments. Tim Hertle, 13988 Erwin Court, stated he lives adjacent to the area where the parking structures were going to be located. He moved to Eden Prairie because of the wildlife and he was concerned about what impact this development would have on his view which he paid a premium to live there. He did not want to see the water level changed. They are concerned about the trees,the height of the buildings, and want to see the plans to see exactly what is being proposed. He asked if the Planning Commission would meet with the homeowners to get questions answered. They are concerned about how long the area would be torn up by construction, and he asked if an EIS had been done. Habicht commented this site is approved as an industrial area and the proponents are proposing a project which is better than what could be built on this site. The developer should have a meeting with the residents to answer their questions and address their concerns. Discussion ensued regarding the wetland alteration impacts. Dorn commented that most of the pond would be the same as it is located within the common area of the townhouse development so very little would change. Franzen commented the trees PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 25, 1999 Page 4 adjacent to the townhome development will remain and the drainage patterns will remain the same as part of the approvals by the agencies which are requirements of the Wetland Alteration Permit process. Staff has identified the visual impacts of the parking decks and recommended that they be moved fixrther to the east to mitigate those impacts by sliding them into the berm. Staff will meet with residents to show them the plans and review the screening areas. Foote asked if ADC was planning to hold a neighborhood meeting and Bob Rizloff responded they would certainly be willing to do that. There will be about 1,200 employees in the Phase I portion of the project,Phase II will bring in about 400 more employees and there would be another 500 employees coming in with Phase III at some time in the future. Discussion ensued regarding the parking structures and how they will be placed on the site and how the wetlands will be impacted. Traffic issues were discussed. Hazardous materials were discussed and Stewart responded there were no hazardous materials or chemicals that will be on the site. They are planning to accommodate their growth through the year 2003. Sandstad asked if there would be willing to move the parking ramp and Stewart responded they have not discussed that at this time. Hadrian Moore, 13969 Erwin Court,was concerned about the notification area being 500 feet. He was also concerned about the construction on Highway 5/1-lighway 212 and what impact that would have on this project and his townhome development. He wanted to see full-size drawings of the plans. He noted the purchase premium was charged because this area was presented as a wetland. Sherry Minar, 13969 Erwin Court,was concerned regarding the laboratories,possible air pollution, and hazardous materials. Franzen commented the City has a policy of notification of development proposals within 500 feet of the site, and the State requires notification areas which are less than 350 feet. This notification area can be expanded at the discretion of the Planning Commission. The development proposals are also published in the City newspaper. Drew Franzen, 13990 Erwin Court,reiterated concerns regarding the laboratories and manufacturing. He was also concerned about the visual impacts of the parking structures and the 30 foot building height requirement. Franzen responded the parking can be 40 feet in height and the proponent is proposing buildings that are 50 feet in height,which is about the same height as the townhomes. Lori Helmer, 1395 Erwin Court, asked about the timing of the project construction. Rizloff responded that if they are approved they would begin construction this spring and propose to be moved in after about 18 months. The rest depends on their growth but Phase II could be done about two years after that. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 25, 1999 Page 5 Don Fournier, 9779 Yucca Lane North,Maple Grove,Manager of MTS Systems, offered MTS as a place to hold their neighborhood meeting. Their building is 40 feet high,which would give the residents some frame of reference as to how high the proposed buildings would be. He requested that Technology Drive be widened to four lanes with Phase I as it is too congested now. He was worried about that much traffic on Technology Drive as there is a day care center located at St. Andrews Lutheran Church which has a great deal of traffic associated with it. He supported the project and felt it was a good addition to this area. Gray commented that the interchange of Highway 5 and Prairie Center Drive will be done at this time next year. Staff has not looked at upgrading Technology Drive at this time,but it could possibly be done. Pastor Rod Anderson, 13600 Technology Drive, stated they were concerned about the traffic management plan. They are planning to add onto the church and timing of these projects is important. He was concerned about the traffic because of the day care,pre- school and early childhood programs, and the amount of traffic these programs generate on Technology Drive. Sandstad asked if the proponents had given any thought to having an on-site day care center and Rizloff responded they did not plan to do that at this time. They will have a fitness center for their employees, as they tend to spend long hours at work. Kate Garwood, Southwest Metro Transit, 13500 Technology Drive, stated she had spoken to ADC's Human Resources Department and they plan to work together to get the transportation plan in place. There are ways to design the transit to come into sites which would provide for wider boulevards and shelters for those that use transit systems. They will be able to do many things to facilitate such things as ride-share matching. She asked the Planning Commission to encourage the developer to talk to Southwest Metro regarding these opportunities that are available. Clinton noted that this was a preliminary development plan and they have a good idea of what will be built on this site. He liked the overall plan and while there are some issues that needed to be resolved, these can be worked out with the residents adjacent to the site. There is a lot of development in this area at the moment and he requested staff to put together some sort of map with timing of projects on it to use as a planning tool. Sandstad felt this was a good project, and he wanted to see section views with clear views of the parking ramps and the Mitchell Road Townhomes. Foote commented that office use versus industrial use was always a bonus, and he would also like to see the sight lines between the parking structure and the townhomes. He believed Technology Drive should be widened with Phase I, and he encouraged residents to meet with ADC to set up the neighborhood meeting. Franzen summarized the concerns expressed and the direction for the proponent and staff, including working with the proponent and the residents to resolve issues concerning the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 25, 1999 Page 6 edge of the project next to the residential area, an explanation of how this project would fit in with the other projects in the area regarding traffic management. The Planning Commission expressed a preference toward developing the site more as an office campus rather than an industrial park. Sandstad commented he had no problem with the building height. Rizloff thanked the Commission and the residents for their input and participation, and stated they would hold a neighborhood meeting when their final plans were prepared. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. OFFICE RIDGE CIRCLE EAST by Cluts, O'Brien, Strother. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 1.05 acres to the overall Bryant Lake Center/Lakeride Office Park PUD,Planned Unit Development District Review on 1.05 acres with waivers, Zoning District Amendment within the Office District on 1.05 acres, Site Plan Review on 1.05 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 1.05 acres into 2 lots. Location: Southeast corner of Valley View Road and Office Ridge Circle. MOTION: Clinton moved, seconded by Sandstad, to close the Public Hearing and return the plans to the proponent without prejudice. Motion carried 7-0. B. PERIGNS SUBDIVISION(a continued public hearing). Request for Preliminary Plat of 3 acres into 3 lots with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Location: 7010 Willow Creek Road. James Perkins reviewed the revised plans and the changes that have been made. The septic system that is proposed is legal and definitely workable. They moved the lot lines to meet the shoreland setbacks and the DNR was no longer opposed to this project. Mr. Swedlund has assured him that since 1979 they have been casting these septic tanks with rebar and stress concrete and they put them in themselves and do the backfilling to prevent them from being damaged and leaking. This is a better plan than the one approved in 1989, and he requested the Planning Commission to approve the plan. Franzen reviewed the staff report and noted staff recommended approval of the revised plat. The Public Hearing was opened. Mark Wieser,Attorney representing several neighbors including the Nolans,Klingens, and Hanson, stated they are opposed to this project. The lot sizes do not meet the lot area requirements and this was sufficient reason to deny the project. The DNR letter does not support the plan as represented by Mr. Perkins. He cited legal arguments which state that lots must meet certain area requirements. There are also questions raised regarding the septic system and its compliance with requirements for one drain field per lot. There is currently a lawsuit to determine whether a plat can be revoked if the proponent does not file it within a reasonable time frame. This plat does not satisfy requirements in the DNR PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 25, 1999 Page 7 letter and the issues regarding the safety of the septic system have not been addressed. Sandstad asked if staff had come up with something to limit the time frame that a plat could be valid without being filed, and Franzen responded the Planning Commission should take action on the land issues as the lawsuits are a private matter. Wieser stated the Bank of Maple Plain is the fee owner of this property and they have not signed the application so this project may not be a legal submission for approval. Perkins responded that sometimes taxes are the reason why there is no time limit on filing plats and Hennepin County is not going to place a time limit on this and the City should not do so either. He discussed the federal and state regulations for septic systems and the regulations referred to by Mr. Wieser pertain to septic systems serving more than 20 homes. Rule 7080 states that you can use an advanced system. The dosing system puts the affluent into the drain field. Mr. Swedlund is a licensed contractor by the State of Minnesota and is also an inspector of septic systems, and if he did not comply with regulations he would lose his license. The DNR has criteria which needs to be met as does the City of Eden Prairie. The character of the neighborhood is not changing that much by this subdivision, and he illustrated how the lot lines were similar to those on adjacent lots. Stuart Nolan, the adjoining property owner, stated he was opposed to the plat, and cited statistics regarding the lot size, of which the average is 1.5 acres, and discussed the character of the neighborhood. This is a unique neighborhood located on a lake,without municipal utilities. He believed two lots would be better, and would save more trees. He requested the Planning Commission to deny the plan. Mrs. Perkins commented that there have been many changes in the neighborhood where she has lived for the past thirty years, and they have survived those changes. There have been six more houses added onto their road, and people have moved away and died, and they have found that change is not necessarily a bad thing. Alexander liked the new plan and she did not feel it would have an adverse impact on the neighborhood and she supported it. Dorn noted the Planning Commissioners had five letters which have been included in their packets in support of this subdivision. Foote commented he does not like to see variances on any project but this was a better plan than the 1979 plan or the last plan they reviewed. The Planning Commission has to take action on the plat as it's submitted, and he supported the project. Habicht commented the 1979 plat was not a good one and this new plat was much better. There are other shoreland variances in the neighborhood so these are not an issue. This plat is a better one and he supported it because there are enough other variances in the area to justify it. Lewis commented she supported it as it was a better plan. There was less shoreline in other lots and she did not want to see the approved plat filed. She was comfortable with the proposed septic system and supported the plat. Dorn commented he looked at this plat as a new plan and he supported it. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 25, 1999 Page 8 MOTION: Alexander moved, seconded by Lewis,to close the public hearing. Motion carried 7-0. MOTION: Alexander moved, seconded by Lewis, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of James Perkins for Preliminary Plat of three acres into three lots based on plans dated January 22, 1999 subject to the recommendations of the staff report dated January 22, 1999. Motion carried 7-0. C. FLAGSHIP CORPORATE CENTER Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 9.2 acres,Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 9.2 acres,Rezoning from Rural and C-Reg-Ser to Office on 9.2 acres, Site Plan Review on 9.2 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 11.2 acres into 2 lots. Location: North of Flagship Athletic Club,west side of Prairie Center Drive, south of Technology Drive. Dan Queenan, Opus Corporate Manager of Real Estate, stated they are in agreement with the recommendations of the staff report but have some comments to make. He reviewed the site plan for the Corporate Center which is 150,000 square feet of Class A office building with no basement. They have eliminated an access point to create a better traffic flow pattern on the site. Wetland Alteration Permits will need to be done. He discussed the traffic and access points, the landscape plan,trails, and building plans. Sandstad asked if it was critical that the City wait to construct the trail across the vacant land to the transit station and Kipp responded this will be discussed by the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission when they review this proposal. Alexander asked why the temporary road was not incorporated into the permanent plan and Queenan responded that it was one way to reduce traffic and to get people over to Technology Drive to facilitate traffic movement on Prairie Center Drive. Dorn commented he did not like the temporary easement or filling the wetlands. Gray commented the wetland the proponent is proposing to fill is essentially the bottom of a ditch but is classified as a wetland because of the vegetation types that grew there. They are not going out into the wetland area. It will have to be filled in anyway to develop the City-owned site. The temporary road is needed to get good cross-access and is a way to avoid having to put more traffic signals on Prairie Center Drive. It will be mutually beneficial to the City and the proponents, and eventually there will be connecting parking lots. Discussion ensued regarding ways the City owned property could be used,possibly for a restaurant. Alexander asked about the wetland boundary and the hundred year floodplain elevation and Kipp responded that the wetland elevation was not correct on the plans. They will need to have an additional permit for floodplain encroachment which will be reviewed by the Watershed District. Habicht commented he supported the access to the north as he felt it was needed. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Eden Prairie January 25, 1999 Page 9 Queenan reviewed the architectural features of the building and showed building renderings. They are proposing to construct a 150,300 square foot, four-story office building. They will have a total of 597 parking spaces, 19 of which will be enclosed. Clinton asked what the total front area of the building was and Queenan responded the building was 307 feet long by 60 feet in height. Clinton was concerned about the building mass. Kipp commented the building would be taller than Flagship Athletic Club but it wouldn't tower over it. Kipp reviewed the staff report and noted the project meets City Codes except for parking stalls and building height. Staff supported the waivers required for the parking and building height. Staff recommended approval of the project. Staff was amenable to those areas of discussion requested by the proponent. Discussion ensued regarding the floodplain location and the area requested to be dedicated as an outlot. The Public Hearing was opened. Ryan Klutz,representing Bachmans, requested their right to have a cut in the median opposite this project when this property is developed. Gray responded they will be able to do this at their own expense by creating a left-turn lane and making the median cut. Sandstad commented he liked the plan but he did not agree with item C regarding the screen wall which he would like to see raised. Lewis concurred with Sandstad. MOTION: Lewis moved, seconded by Sandstad, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 7-0. MOTION: Lewis moved, seconded by Sandstad,to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Opus Northwest,LLC for PUD Concept Review on 9.2 acres, PUD District Review on 9.2 acres, Zoning District change from Rural and C-Reg-Ser to Office on 9.2 acres, Site Plan Review on 9.2 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 11.2 acres into 2 lots, based on plans dated January 22, 1999 and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated January 22, 1999. Motion carried 6-1. Alexander voted no. V. PUBLIC MEETING VI. MEMBERS' REPORTS VII. CONTINUING BUSINESS MOTION: Sandstad moved, seconded by Clinton,to direct staff to evaluate the pros and cons of a legal adoption of an ordinance that should set an expiration time of 12 or 18 months on new plats and subdivisions. Motion carried 7-0. Sandstad commented he would appreciate a survey of several dozen other suburbs regarding their PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Eden Prairie January 25, 1999 Page 10 policies and a response from staff within 60 days. Clinton asked about the Outback Steakhouse status and Kipp responded they have signed their Developers Agreement so it appears they are proceeding with their plans to build. VIII. NEW BUSINESS Foote asked about the premium price required by some developers for a view and whether there was anything that could be done to encourage developers to let people know about the guiding on land adjacent to their projects. Franzen responded that some developers require property owners to sign off on the area around their developments to tell their buyers what will occur on adjacent properties. It is not something the City can require,but it is encouraged. IX. PLANNERS' REPORTS X. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Lewis moved, seconded by Habicht,to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 7-0. The meeting was adjourned at 10:34 p.m.