Planning Commission - 03/11/1996 AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,March 11, 1996 7:00 P.M.
COADUSSION MEMBERS: Kenneth E. Clinton, Randy Foote, Ismail Ismail,
Katherine Kardell, Douglas Sandstad, Edward
Schlampp,Mary Jane Wissner
STAFF MEMBERS: Scott Kipp, Planner
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE--ROLL CALL
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
III. MINUTES
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. BEARPATH 1996 PUD AMENDMENT by Bearpath Limited Partnership.
Request for PUD Amendment and Zoning District Amendment on 15 acres.
Location: Bearpath Trail and Dell Road.
B. IMPACT MARKETING DEVELOPMENT by Keith Waters. Request For
• Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Hennepin County to Office, Zoning
District Change from Rural to Office on 6.02 acres, Site Plan Review on 6.02 acres,
and Preliminary Plat of 6.02 acres into 2 lots. Location: Baker Road and HWY 62.
C. LAKEVIEW OFFICE by Dana Larson, Roubal and Associates. Request for
Zoning District Amendment in the Office Zoning District on 2.79 acres, Site Plan
Review on 2.79 acres,and Preliminary plat of 5.74 acres into 2 lots. Location: West
78th Street.
D. FLYING CLOUD BUSINESS CENTER by Opus Corporation. Request for
Zoning District Amendment in the I-5 Zoning District and Site Plan Review on 15.6
acres,Planned Unit Development Concept Review and Planned Unit Development
District Review on 15.6 acres. Location: 6509 Flying Cloud Drive.
V. MEMBERS' REPORTS
VI. CONTINUING BUSINESS
VII. NEW BUSINESS
VIII. PLANNERS' REPORTS
IX. ADJOURNMENT
APPROVED MINUTES
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
March 11, 1996
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Katherine Kardell, Kenneth E.
Clinton,Randy Foote,Ismail Ismail,
Douglas Sandstad, Edward
Schlampp,Mary Jane Wissner
STAFF MEMBERS: Scott Kipp, Planner
Elinda Bahley, City Recorder
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE-ROLL CALL
Acting Chair Clinton called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Commissioners Foote
and Kardell were absent from this evening's meeting.
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION: Sandstad moved, seconded by Wissner to approve the agenda as
published.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION: Sandstad moved, seconded by Wissner to approve the Minutes of the
February 26, 1996 Planning Commission meeting as amended: page five, second
paragraph after the motion, first sentence should read: Sandstad recommended that
the City start investing in seminars and conferences for the commissioners to attend,
or at least for Chair Kardell to be given an opportunity. Motion carried 5-0.
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. BEARPATH 1996 PUD AMENDMENT by Bearpath Limited Partnership.
Request for PUD Amendment and Zoning District Amendment on 15 acres.
Location: Bearpath Trail and Dell Road.
Kipp noted this item was continued from the February 12 meeting, and he
introduced John Vogelbacher,representing Bearpath.
• 1
John Vogelbacher noted the modification made to the application has been as
ia result of neighborhood meetings. They have addressed some of the
concerns of the residents on Breckenridge Lane by removing those lots from
the proponent's request. The main objective was to provide more safety for
the golf course. Their particular guidelines have been modified to require a
40 foot rear setback for those lots on the south side of Bearpath Trail.
Schlampp questioned whether the residents of the Homeowner's Association
conducted the neighborhood meetings. Vogelbacher replied currently the
Homeowner's Association does not have any resident members because the
number of lots currently owned by the developer exceeds 50 percent. When
the homeowners exceed 50 percent they are offered two seats on the board.
At some point,the Association is turned over to the residents.
Schlampp asked if the property owners were against this project.
Vogelbacher noted the modifications that revised the application were as a
result of the conversations had with the residents.
Schlampp expressed concern about residents of Bearpath opposing this
project,but they had no say in it because 50 percent of the lots are not sold.
Vogelbacher stated they notified the residents of the issues in a couple of
different ways. They were also notified of this particular meeting and were
requested to give any comments or letter of inquiries.
Ismail was concerned about the public access to the development. He asked
if it was still an issue or not. Volgelbacher noted over the last 60 days they
have gone through certain proposals at a staff level. There were a couple of
different meetings about how the access by pedestrians and bicycle traffic
would be allowed and regulated within the community. Approval has been
received relative to how the public access would be administered.
The Public Hearing was opened.
Reed Johnson, 9166 Breckenridge Lane, noted he and he wife are
appreciative to Bearpath for clarifying this setback to return to the
understanding they had when they purchased their property. He made
reference to two letters he received from the City. There is a reference from
the July 14, 1994 letter to the fact that the living area behind the garage could
be five feet from the side setback. He requested the first letter dated March
1, 1996,replace the letter dated July 14, 1994.
He showed photographs of his home making reference to the pink area. The
house to the left of his was constructed by Charles Cudd Company and it
started three weeks after they moved into their home. The area in pink is
2
construction that is not in accordance with the letter of March 1, 1996. It was
built without consulting them, and it was also done over their objection as the
construction progressed. They expressed concern about the effects to their
privacy and the investment they made.
Sandstad asked whether the pink area is a matter of covenants or is it an
ordinance setback problem. Kipp replied it would be the latter. City code
does permit five foot setbacks for either garage or livable space. The
covenants for the 20 foot rear setback has more restrictive setback
requirements and interpretations.
Wissner stated she's not comfortable to grant this waiver. It disturbs her when
people originally thought one thing and then it changes.
Schlampp concurred with Wissner and does not support this waiver request.
Clinton commented he is not supportive of the waiver to the PUD. The PUD
was given a lot of consideration while they went further through the planning
process. The proposal to move the setback 10 feet forward is to
accommodate the larger homes, and it's a disservice to those who have built
within the constraints.
• MOTION 1: Wissner moved, seconded by Schlampp to close the Public
Hearing. Motion carried 5-0.
MOTION 2: Wissner moved, seconded by Schlampp to deny the request for
PUD Amendment and Zoning District Amendment on 15 acres based on plans
dated March 8, 1996. Motion carried 5-0.
B. IMPACT MARKETING DEVELOPMENT by Keith Waters. Request for
Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Hennepin County to Office on 6.02
acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to Office on 6.02 acres, Site Plan
Review on 6.02 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 6.02 acres into 2 lots.
Location: Baker Road and HWY 62.
Kipp introduced Keith Waters representing John Stedman, owner.
Keith Waters reviewed the project with the Planning Commission using a
model. This piece of property was owned by Hennepin County. It was
property they acquired when they were extending the Crosstown Highway to
Baker Road.
The site is characterized by steep slopes, ravines, wetlands and heavy tree
• 3
cover. Tree loss is approximately 14 percent, about 300 caliper inches. The
proposal is to plant evergreens and deciduous shrubs as a buffer to the
residential development to the south. This is a very sensitive use to a very
difficult piece of property.
Ismail expressed concern about the traffic in the area, referring to the
Northwest health club. Waters replied their traffic would be during business
hours of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., and would generate minimal traffic based on the
building square footage.
Ismail asked if there was any chance of building more offices at this site.
Waters replied no. They are not developers by background, so they have no
interest in that.
Schlampp was concerned about where the runoff runs from the parking area.
Waters noted the water is 100 percent directed into the holding pond.
Wissner was concerned about the condition of the pond. Waters commented
that it is considered a holding pond, not a wetland. The pond has been
receiving County Road runoff for many years.
Sandstad expressed concern about the transition between the low and medium
S density residential to the office use. Waters said the transition will be a
combination of a couple of things. One is keeping the existing vegetation
wherever possible,the other is using evergreen plantings. They are proposing
a naturalistic retaining wall consisting of very large bolders with a planting
area.
Kipp reviewed the Staff Report with the Planning Commission. The proposal
takes advantage of the natural topography of the site minimizing the tree loss
to 14 percent. Office areas typically have up to 40 percent significant tree
loss. The daily trips are considerably lower than if the site was developed at
10 units per acre, similar to the neighboring residential. This proposal is a low
intensity use of the property. There is no wetland fill. There is no road
connection to the townhomes to the south. Buildings are setback at a
considerable distance to the existing townhomes. Staff recommends approval
of this project.
The Public Hearing was opened.
Ann Vanderot,6263 St.Johns Drive, commented she would like to see the
site remain as woods. She enjoys the natural area and the deer that roam in
there. She doesn't want to see anymore office buildings in the area.
4
Terry Candeaux, 6261 St. Johns Drive, expressed concern about the
increased traffic on Baker Road as a result of this project. She was concerned
about the safety of the children playing in the streets and riding their bicycles
due to the increase in traffic. There was also concern about children playing
on the retaining wall and falling into the parking lot. She very much enjoys
the nature in the woods and wants it to remain that way.
Allen Bode 6272 St Johns Drive, noted they live in the house closest to
Baker Road. He was concerned about loosing the vegetation and the trees
that are already at the property line.
Waters commented they would get more buffer out of the plan that is
proposed than what's already there.
Bode noted they lost a significant amount of trees due to a snowstorm, and
was concerned about it happening again at the property line. The entrance to
the office parking is right next to their townhome. He was concerned about
the value of his home decreasing as a result of the office parking.
Wissner commented about a development called Hartford Place. That project
includes townhomes built right between two office buildings. These
townhomes have sold very quickly so there probably isn't a need for Mr. Bode
• to worry about his home value decreasing. An office complex would probably
be better on this site than if more townhomes were constructed. If
townhomes went in,there would be more tree loss,higher density, and a great
increase in traffic. This office building will have a specialized and unique
look.
Kipp noted the Director of Assessment can help Mr. Bode about determining
the value of his home.
Ismail commented he supports the project.
Sandstad commented the plan looks very nice,but was concerned about the
illumination after hours and evening hours. Since there is no plan for lighting,
a condition should be put in the motion concerning the lighting.
Wissner expressed concern about the signage. Waters noted there is one sign
in the landscaping area. Both of the business are more professional so there
will not be any advertising signs. They will share one sign but have not
designed anything yet.
MOTION 1: Sandstad moved, seconded by Wissner to close the Public
. 5
Hearing. Motion carried 5-0.
MOTION 2: Sandstad moved, seconded by Wissner to recommend to the
City Council approval of the request of Keith Waters for Comprehensive
Guide Plan Change from Hennepin County to Office on 6.02 acres, Zoning
District Change from Rural to Office on 6.02 acres, Site Plan Review on 6.02
acres and Preliminary Plat of 6.02 acres into 2 lots based on plans dated
March 8, 1996, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff report dated
March 8, 1996 with the addition of item 3E to provide site lighting contours
to Staff demonstrating illumination not to exceed one half of a foot-candle at
the south lot line. Motion carried 5-0.
C. LAKEVIEW OFFICE by Dana Larson,Roubal and Associates. Request for
Zoning District Amendment in the Office Zoning District on 2.79 acres, Site
Plan Review on 2.79 acres, and Preliminary plat of 5.74 acres into 2 lots.
Location: West 78th Street.
Kipp introduced Griff Davenport representing Dana Larson, Roubal and
Associates.
John Crump, an associate of Griff Davenport and the lead designer of the
project,reviewed his proposal with the Planning Commission. The building
• is being constructed for a small group of architect and engineering
consultants. The building is 16,000 square feet with underground parking.
The underground parking is required to meet the parking zoning ordinances.
The site plan shows the construction of a one story walkout office building.
The site is part of the Cabriole Center project which was approved for two,
three story office buildings.
Four variances are needed which include:
1. A minimum lot size from 5 acres to 2.79 acres.
2. A shoreland setback from 200 to 130 feet.
3. Zero lot line setback to parking.
4. Exterior materials from 75 percent face brick and glass, 61 percent
burnished block, 19 percent dryvit, and 2 percent concrete.
Davenport commented notices were sent out and a neighborhood meeting was
held. There was no opposition at the meeting. A letter from the DNR was
received supporting the variance request for the required setback from the.
high water level of Anderson Lake. This proposal is going to create much less
traffic problems, and much less impact to the adjacant neighborhood.
6
Kipp reviewed the Staff Report and the variances required with the Planning
Commission. He noted the building could be relocated to meet the 200 foot
setback to the high water level. This would result in the loss of large oak and
maple trees and non-significant vegetation. The building is 395 feet back from
the main water body. Staff recommends approval of the plan as submitted.
The Public Hearing was opened.
Connie Wetmore,8040 Ensign Road,expressed concern about the building
encroaching on the wildlife in the wetland. She wants the building to stay 200
feet away from the wetland. She noted nobody has come to look at the
wetland. There is no public access. You can only get to it through her
property and she invited everyone to come and view it now that the snow is
melting.
Sandstad commented this building is smaller and no closer to the shoreland
than what was previously approved in 1989.
Schlampp commented it is not a ditch,but definitely a portion of the lake.
Jay Wetmore,8040 Ensign Road,commented he shares the same concerns
as his wife. He was also concerned about the neighbors in the back viewing
a three story building because of the underground parking.
Mary Carr,8100 Ensign Road,commented she has lived there for 24 years.
She expressed concern about why the 1985 drought level was used to
determine the high water level. She was concerned about the different
variances needed and about the wildlife in the wetland.
Kipp noted the setback referred to of the two water levels shown on the plan
is from the higher of the two. It is being taken from the higher contour
showing 132 feet versus 150 feet. Regarding the variances,the residents will
have another opportunity at the Board of Appeals to give their objections.
Marilyn Sampson,8048 Ensign Road,noted she has lived here for 28 years.
She expressed concern about the protected line around the lake and the
wildlife in the area. She was concerned about this building being gray because
the view from her living room of the Cabriole building looks like a penal
institution.
Jan Hubred, 8056 Ensign Road,expressed concern about the natural lake
and the wildlife. They have taken good care in preserving this area and does
not want to see the developers encroaching on it. She was also concerned
7
about the drainage.
Sandstad asked if the developers considered sliding the building northwest,
raise the elevation so there's a berm there, and parking would not be too far
away.
Crump commented they considered it but it was not feasible. He also noted
they made an offer to the neighboring residents of locating some substantial
trees on to their property or the property line. This would help for barriers
between their homes and the proposed building.
Schlampp commented he does not like to see infringement on shoreland
ordinances which are very precious and few. He suggested some redesigning
be done to bring the building back to the 200 foot setback requirement.
Sandstad wanted the record to be clear that the plan received clearly shows
a portion of Anderson Lakes extending closer to the building. He was
supportive of the project because it has fewer impacts than the one the City
approved in 1989.
Clinton supported the proposal.
Wissner felt confident supporting the project because the DNR previously
approved it.
MOTION 1: Sandstad moved, seconded by Wissner to close the Public
Hearing. Motion carried 5-0.
MOTION 2: Sandstad moved, seconded by Wissner to recommend to the
City Council approval of the request of Dana Larson,Roubal and Associates
for Zoning District Amendment in the Office Zoning District on 2.79 acres,
Site Plan Review on 2.79 acres, and Preliminary plat of 5.74 acres into 2 lots
based on plans dated March 8, 1996, and subject to the recommendations of
the Staff Report dated March 8, 1996 with the understanding that this design
has fewer and less impact on the site and adjacant Anderson Lake than the
earlier project approved by this same commission and council in 1989.
Motion carried 4-1 with opposition by Schlampp.
D. FLYING CLOUD BUSINESS CENTER by Opus Corporation. Request
for Zoning District Amendment in the I-5 Zoning District and Site Plan
Review on 15.6 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review and
Planned Unit Development District Review on 15.6 acres. Location: 6509
Flying Cloud Drive.
• 8
Kipp introduced Jim Never representing Opus Corporation.
Jim Never reviewed his proposal with the Planning Commission. This is a one
story 204,000 square foot building. It is a speculative warehouse project.
There are one to ten tenants expected to be in the building. The building
consists on the average of 25 percent office, and 75 percent warehouse and
manufacturing use. The project has been designed to meet all of the current
zoning codes with one exception. They are requesting a waiver to allow a
160 sq. ft. monument sign, versus the 80 square feet allowed by city code.
This additional square footage would be reduced in the permitted amount of
wall sign area.
They have worked sensitively with Staff over the last several months and took
Staff recommendations for modification. They have met with the other
businesses and they are in favor of this. Never commented that Mr.Dvorak,
land owner to the south of the proposal,has concerns about the retaining wall,
seeing the building from his property, and having a pond that may attract
geese and attack his field. The developer needs the NURP pond and can not
remove it. Never said they are also evaluating a roadway easement located
along the extreme west end of the site.
The building will be constructed of glass and pre-cast concrete panel. There
0 is an integrated signage plan so all the tenants for the building will have a
similar type style and size. Because of the size of the building, a larger pylon
size is asked to be approved. This will help identify some of the businesses at
the end of the building.
Sandstad asked if there was a retaining wall between the north property and
this property. Never replied no.
Ismail asked what kind of businesses would occupy the building. Never noted
it would be a light manufacturing use.
Ismail questioned whether there was any playground or recreation area where
the workers could go. Never noted there are no basketball courts or park
area proposed.
Clinton expressed concern about there being a market for this type of use
since there is a vacant 150,000 sq. ft. building available on Prairie Center
Drive. Never replied they are not building it to sit empty. He expects the
market to be good and hopes to be in there by the summer.
Sandstad commented that the Parks Commission is well advised to see what
they can do for a recreation area.
. 9
Wissner supported the project.
MOTION 1: Wissner moved, seconded by Schlampp to close the Public
Hearing. Motion carried 5-0.
MOTION 2: Wissner moved, seconded by Schlampp to recommend to the
City Council approval of the request of Opus Corporation for Planned Unit
Development Concept Review on 15.6 acres, Planned Unit Development
District Review on 15.6 acres,Zoning District Amendment in the I-5 Zoning
District on 15.6 acres, and Site Plan Review on 15.6 acres based on plans
dated March 8, 1996,and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report
dated March 8, 1996. Motion carried 5-0.
V. MEMBERS' REPORTS
None.
VI. CONTINUING BUSINESS
None.
VII. NEW BUSINESS
None.
VIII. PLANNERS' REPORTS
Kipp reviewed new projects tentatively schedule for the next meeting.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Schlampp moved, seconded by Sandstad to adjourn the meeting.
Motion carried 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
10