Loading...
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