Loading...
Planning Commission - 01/27/1992 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COM MSSION Monday, January 27, 1992 7:30 p.m. CONBMSION MEMBERS: Chairperson Charles Ruebling, Tim Bauer, Robert Hallett, Karen Norman, Doug Sandstad, James Hawkins and Katherine Kardell STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Don Uram, Planner; Deb Edlund, Recording Secretary Pledge of Allegiance -- Roll Call I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA U. MEMBERS REPORTS M. MINUTES IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. TACO BELL by Taco Bell Corporation. Request for Site Plan Review within the C-Reg-Ser Zoning District on 0.56 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals for construction of a restaurant to be known as Taco Bell. Location: Joiner Way, south of Goodyear Tire. A continued public hearing. B. NORMARK CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS by Normark Corporation-c/o Hoyt Properties. Request for Zoning District Change from Office to I-2 on 3.77 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, Site Plan Review on 3.77 acres for construction of a 48,000 square foot office/warehouse building to be known as Normark Corporation. V. OLD BUSINESS VI. PLANNERS' REPORTS VII. ADJOURNMENT AGN127.BS EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES MONDAY, JANUARY 27, 1992 7:30 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7600 Executive Drive COMMISSION MEMBERS: Tim Bauer, Robert Hallett, James Hawkins, Katherine Kardell, Karen Norman, Charles Ruebling,Doug Sandstad. STAFF MEMBERS: Don Uram, Planner; Deb Edlund, Recording Secretary ROLL CALL: Bauer and Sandstad absent. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA a MOTION: Kardell moved, seconded by Norman to approve the Agenda as published. Motion carried 5-0-0. II. MEMBERS REPORTS em. MINUTES MOTION: Hawkins moved, seconded by Kardell to approve the Minutes of the January 13, 1992 Planning Commission with the following corrections: Page 2, Paragraph 3 should read: Hawkins believed that a vacation of certain easements would be the cleanest approach but questioned whether the utility easement should also be vacated. Page 3, Paragraph 3 should read: Hawkins asked if the 25% was calculated on the proposed site or 25% of all land within 1000 feet of the lake. Page 3, Paragraph 6 should read: Hawkins asked to what extent N.U.R.P. ponds had been adopted by Eden Prairie. Motion carried 4-0-1. Ruebling abstained. 1 IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. TACO BELL by Taco Bell Corporation. Request for Site Plan Review within the C-Reg-Ser Zoning District on 0.56 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals for construction of a restaurant to be known as Taco Bell. Location Joiner Way, south of Goodyear Tire. (A continued public hearing) John Ruggieri, representing the proponent, stated that Nancy Heuer, a traffic consultant, had been hired and recommended that the traffic pattern and design as originally proposed be adopted. The trash enclosure had been enlarged as per Staff recommendations by relocating an interior wall. Franzen had deferred on the issue of a roof over the trash enclosure, the proponent preferred not to install a roof; however, if required one would be added. Ruggieri reported that the mechanical equipment would not be seen from the road. Ruggieri noted that 3 variances were required for the project. Hawkins asked Ruggieri to respond to recommendation in the letter from the traffic consultant related to the possibility of an additional driveway at the northeast corner if directional signing did not work out. Ruggieri replied that the proponent would live with this recommendation if it was proved necessary. Hawkins asked what would be considered a fair test. Ruggieri replied that he did not anticipate a problem. Norman asked if there would be enough width for 2 cars at the drive-thru. Ruggieri replied that there would be a secondary access through the Goodyear lot and a 25-foot backup area was provided. Ruggieri noted that all areas met City Code. Norman asked if any consideration had been given to turning the building at a different angle. Uram replied that the proponent and Staff had looked at every possible angle. Uram reported that the proponent had made all of the changes requested by the Planning Commission at the last meeting and Staff recommended approval of the project. Hawkins noted that the requirement for new easements for new sanitary sewer location and cross access between Goodyear and Taco Bell were not part of the Staff recommendations and believed that this should be added. Ruebling noted that the recommendations from the previous Staff report should be included. Norman commented that at the previous meeting she had believed that two accesses were necessary; however, after review of the traffic consultants report she concurred that the plan as proposed would be adequate. Norman further believed that directional signage was critical. MOTION 1: Kardell moved, seconded by Norman to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0-0. • 2 MOTION 2: Kardell moved, seconded by Norman to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Taco Bell for Zoning District Amendment within the C-Reg-Ser District on 0.56 acre, with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, for construction of a restaurant to be known as Taco Bell, based on revised plans dated January 30, 1992, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated January 10 and 24, 1992 with the addition of Item LE Prior to Building Permit issuance proponent shall develop and receive approval of new easements to define sanitary sewer location and cross easement between Goodyear and Taco Bell be completed. Motion carried 5-0-0. MOTION 3: Kardell moved, seconded by Norman to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Taco Bell for Site Plan Review on 0.56 acre for construction of a restaurant to be known as Taco Bell, based on revised plans dated January 30, 1992, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated January 10 and 24, 1992 with the addition of Item LE Prior to Building Permit issuance proponent shall develop and receive approval of new easements to define sanitary sewer location and cross easement between Goodyear and Taco Bell be completed. Motion carried 5-0-0. B. NORMARK CORPORATE HEADOURTERS, by Normark Corporation. Request for Zoning District Change from Office to I-2 on 3.77 acres, with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, and Site Plan Review on 3.77 acres for construction of a 48,000 sq. ft. office/warehouse building. Location: North of Nine Mile Creek, east of Golden Triangle Drive. (A public hearing) Steve Hoyt, representing the proponent, introduced Dan Russ, Russ Saulon, Jerry Floden, and Bob Miller, who would also be available for questions regarding the project. Hoyt stated that Hoyt Development would build and develop the property; however, the facility would be owned by Normark. He noted that this parcel was one of two left to be developed in Technology Park. Hoyt said that in 1985 they had received approval to construct a 5-story office building and in 1987 had come back for approval of a 3-story office building. Hoyt believed that office space was not a marketable product at this time. Hoyt further believed that this was a perfect site for the corporate headquarters for Normark Corporation. Hoyt noted that the proponent had tried to address all of the issues which would be sensitive for the Planning Commission and the City Council. An easement had been obtained from Technology 5 & 6 to direct the truck traffic away from Golden Triangle Drive. Hoyt reported that a 20-foot setback was required from the hill; however, because of the location of the creek, only a 10-foot setback could be accomplished. Some grading of the hill, which was now owned by the City would be necessary. Hoyt noted that the property would be restored and believed that there would be no detriment to the property. Hoyt noted that part of Nine Mile Creek was man-made in relation to the requirement for a 100-foot setback. Hoyt stated 3 that the proponent had made an application to Nine Mile Creek, the DNR, and Army Corp of Engineers. The proponent had been advise by the DNR that no permit was required and Nine Mile Creek had indicated they would act favorably regarding the project. Hawkins asked how many employees would be located at this site. Bob Miller, representing Normark, replied that presently there were 28 employees. Ruebling asked if the easement would be permanent. Hoyt replied that the easement would run with the property. Hoyt added that a sign would be placed on 76th Street to direct truck traffic. Uram asked Russ Saulon to address the architecture of the building. Saulon replied that the building was shaped largely by the property constraints. The warehouse would be to the east and the office located in the southwest corner of the building. The entrance to the building would on ground level and would blend into a walkout situation in the southwest corner of the building. Saulon stated that the employees would be able to walkout on the lower level onto a patio and go on to a pond area. The warehouse would be windowless. The warehouse walls and retaining wall would be of the same material. Saulon noted that the brick would be modular. Hawkins asked if the proof of parking area would be paved. Saulon replied that the proof of parking area would be left natural, but would be graded. Hawkins believed that this was an attractive building. Floden added that if the proof of parking was needed, the wall could be built further back. • Hallett questioned if more trees and more of the hill would be lost if the wall needed to be relocated for proof of parking. Uram noted that this had been taken into consideration. Uram added that the trees were mostly poplar. Floden reported that the pond had been designed to handle this site as well as Technology 5 & 6. The storm water runoff would be captured with catch basins. Floden noted that the pond size was consistent with the Nine Mile Creek requirements and a plan had been submitted to the Army Corp of Engineers. Hallett asked if a permit was not required due to the size of the project. Flodin replied that a permit was not required because the project did not encroach on the DNR wetlands. Hawkins asked if there was a copy of the letter from the DNR on file. Uram replied yes. Floden submitted a copy of the letter from the DNR for the Planning Commission's review. Uram asked Floden to comment on the letter from Mary Krause. Floden replied that to achieve a 836 elevation filling of the DNR wetlands would be required. Uram stated that this issue would need to be resolved and believed that it could be 4 accomplished by further discussions with the Engineering Department. Hawkins asked Staff to comment on the last paragraph of the letter from the DNR which stated that the project would not be compatible with the current State shoreline management guidelines. Uram replied that Eden Prairie had never met the State Shoreland Ordinances, but Staff was meeting with the State to try to get closer to meeting the State Requirements. Uram added that this was only a general comment on every project seen by the City. Uram stated that an onsite inspection had been done with the DNR. He added that State requirements were more stringent than the City's requirements. Hawkins asked what aspects of the State requirements would have an affect on this project. Uram replied that he couldn't comment on this particular project. Ruebling asked if City requirements set precedence over State requirements. Uram replied that the State requirements were very strict; however, the City would like to be in conformance with what everyone else was doing. Norman asked if there was a distinction between commercial and recreational development. Uram replied yes. Hallett believed that there was too much building for this site. Hallett said that the building was beautifully designed; however, he questioned if the hill had been given to mitigate another project. Hoyt replied that the hill property had been given to the City for tax credit purposes which had not worked out favorably for Hoyt Development. He added that the hill would be there forever. Hoyt noted that the project was below the Floor Area Ratio requirements and added that Technology Park as a whole had approximately 35% less building space than could be built. Hoyt stated that less parking was required on this project than was previously approved. Uram replied that two projects had been previously approved on this site and the amount of grading and tree loss was close in comparison on all three projects. Uram added that approximately 760 caliper inches of trees would be replaced. Hallett questioned if there was enough room on this site to replace 760 caliper inches. Uram believed there would be adequate space available. Uram believed that this was a viable project. He did not believe that a 100% office project would ever be constructed and that the combination of office/warehouse was a good compromise. Uram added that the storm sewer pipe from Technology 5 & 6 would help clean up a current sedimentation problem. Uram reported that Staff was recommending approval of the project based on the Staff recommendations. Kardell noted that the Staff report referred to a very high retaining wall and questioned what alternatives had been discussed. Floden replied that the retaining wall was 16 feet high along the corner of the truck parking lot, which blended into the hill, and which dropped rapidly in height. Flodin added that the proponent could not fill in the wetland area. Uram replied that an alternative would be to work with the adjacent property owner; however, permits would be required. Uram added that a 16-foot high wall was proposed now, but may not be necessary 5 in the future. • Kardell asked if the pedestrian system would end and not connect to other trails. Uram replied that previous Staff Reports did not discuss trails at all. Uram added that having the trail go down Golden Triangle Drive had been discussed and the trail connection was not a dead issue. Hallett asked if this project would be reviewed by the Park & Recreation Commission. Uram replied yes. Hallett asked if any permits were required by the DNR. Uram replied no. Uram added that the Watershed District would not review the project until it was reviewed by the City. Hallett asked if neighbors had been notified. Uram replied yes. Hallett commented that he would have preferred to have done a site review of the property. Scott Wallace, Sunnybrook Road, asked if the Planning Commission had seen the 1989 Shoreland Ordinance. He added that the City would be required to comply with the State Ordinance by 1993 and a 300 foot setback would then be required. Uram stated that this property could never be developed if a 300 foot setback were required. Uram noted that Staff was scheduled to meet with State officials on February 27, 1992 to discuss the Ordinance requirements further. Wallace stated that he was concerned about the rapid acceleration in development. • Hawkins asked if the Planning Commission could be provided with the current State and City shoreland requirements. Uram replied that the City requirements were part of Chapter 11 in the City Code. Norman asked if there were other facilities which were located this close to the creek. Uram replied the Vikings training facility. Uram added that a site review had been done by Staff. Hawkins asked if any restrictive covenants had been placed on the hill property. Hoyt replied no and added that this was not part of the City Park system. Uram concurred that this was not part of the park system and added that there was not much that could be done with the property and it would just be left natural. Hallett questioned if it made sense to meet with the Park & Recreation Commission before meeting with the State. Uram replied that there had been ongoing discussions with the State. Hawkins asked where the Normark Corporate headquarters were located presently. Miller replied in Richfield. Hawkins asked how soon the proponent expected to break ground. Miller replied April. Norman believed that if other buildings in the area were located close to the creek then it may not be appropriate to change at this time. Norman added that she would like to see the City get 6 closer to compliance with State requirements. Kardell believed that the Staff Report was well done and the proponent had done a good job in dealing with the constraints of the property. Kardell believed it would make a nice addition to the community. Hawkins believed that the natural amenities which had attracted the proponent to the site had actually created problems for the development. Hawkins said that he was not ready to approve the proposal tonight. He added that he would like time to review the State requirements. Hawkins believed that it was important to consider the future and while the trade- offs might be appropriate he was not prepared this evening to make a final decision. Uram asked Hawkins if he wanted the Park & Recreation Commission to review the plan and then have the proposal return to the Planning Commission. Hawkins believed it was important to get input from the Park&Recreation Commission. Uram noted that Bob Lambert, Director of the Park & Recreation Department had participated in the site review. Norman believed that if Lambert was not in favor of the project, he would be present to voice an opinion. Hallett stated that he was inclined to abstain. He added that he couldn't give a strong reason for denial, but was not comfortable with approval. Hallett believed there was too much development on the site and he would like to hear from the Park & Recreation Department. Hallett noted that the variances would be determined by others. • Ruebling believed that given what had been done in this area in the past the plan was consistent. He added that the site was less than 4 acres. Ruebling believed that the office/warehouse combination created a better project for the site than previous proposals. Ruebling further believed that this type of business was appropriate for the site. MOTION 1: Norman moved, seconded by Kardell to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0-0. MOTION 2: Norman moved, seconded by Kardell to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Normark Corporation for Zoning District Change from Office to I-2 on 3.77 acres, with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, for construction of an 48,000 sq. ft. office/warehouse, based on plans dated , 1992, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated January 10 and 24, 1992. Motion carried 3-2-0. Hallett and Hawkins voted "NO". MOTION 3: 7 Norman moved, seconded by Kardell to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Normark Corporation for Site Plan Review on 3.77 acres, for construction of an 48,000 sq. ft. office/warehouse, based on plans dated , 1992, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated January 10 and 24, 1992. Motion carried 3-2-0. Hallett and Hawkins voted "NO". Hallett stated that the reason for voting against the project was that this was a sensitive area and he questioned where the Park&Recreation Commission was on the project. Hallett questioned if there would be a pedestrian and bike system. Uram asked Hallett if he would be comfortable to have a courtesy visit from the proponent after the plan was reviewed by the Park & Recreation Commission. Hoyt replied that he would be willing to return. Hawkins stated that his reason for voting against the project was the unanswered questions related to the possibility of a trail system, the encroachment on City land, and the conflict between the City and State Shoreland Ordinance requirements. Hawkins requested that a copy of the letter from the DNR be included as part of the record. Norman recommended that Staff let the Commissioners know if a lot of variances were required or if the site was tight and arrange for a site review by the Commission prior to the meeting. • Hawkins stated that his concerns were with the property only and not the proponent. Hawkins believed that Normark would be an attractive corporate citizen. V. OLD BUSINESS Hallett asked Staff to comment on the letter Peter & Gay Pope. Ruebling stated that this letter had not been submitted to the Planning Commission. Uram stated that if Staff had received the letter if was an oversite that it was not forwarded to the Planning Commission. Hallett believed that a letter of apology to the Pope's and a copy to Commission members would be appropriate. VI. PLANNERS' REPORTS VU. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Hawkins moved, seconded by Norman to adjourn the meeting at 9:20 PM. Motion carried 5-0-0. 8