Planning Commission - 01/14/1991 AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING CONMIISSION
Monday, January 14, 1991
7:30 p.m.
COMNIISSION MEMBERS: Chairperson Christine Dodge, Tim Bauer, Julianne Bye, Robert Hallett,
Karen Norman, Charles Ruebling, Doug Sandstad.
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
H. MEMBERS REPORTS
III. NIINUTES
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. KMSP CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS, (91-1-Z-P-SPR) by Kraus Anderson Company.
Request for a Planned Unit Development Concept amendment on 109.68 acres; Planned Unit
Development District Review on 5.63 acres with a waiver for a broadcast tower height of 120
feet; Zoning District Change from C-Reg to C-Reg-Ser on 5.63 acres with shoreland variances
to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals; Site Plan Review on 5.63 acres; Preliminary Plat 7.2
acres into one lot and one outlot for construction of a 47,700 square foot building to be known
as KMSP TV, Channel 9. A public hearing. Location: Northwest quadrant of Viking Drive
and Prairie Center Drive.
B. AMOCO, (91-2-Z-SPR) by Amoco Oil Company. Request for Planned Unit Development
Concept Amendment on 21 acres; Planned Unit Development District Review on 21 acres with
waivers; Zoning District Amendment and Site Plan Review within the Community Commercial
District on 0.8 acres for construction of a gas station/food shop to be known as Amoco. A
public hearing. Location: southeast corner of Mitchell Road and Martin Drive.
V. OLD BUSINESS `
A. POST OFFICE
VI. PLANNER'S REPORT
A. IRRIGATION ORDINANCE
VII. ADJOURNMENT
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
• APPROVED MINUTES
MONDAY, JANUARY 14, 1991 7:30 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7600 Executive Drive
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairperson Christine Dodge, Tim Bauer, Julianne Bye, Robert
Hallett, Karen Norman, Charles Ruebling, Doug Sandstad.
STAFF MEMBERS: Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Deb Edlund, Recording Secretary.
ROLL CALL: Bye and Ruebling absent.
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION:
Bauer moved, seconded by Norman to approve the Agenda as published. Motion carried 5-0-0.
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
M. MINUTES
• MOTION:
Bauer moved, seconded by Norman to.approve the Planning Commission Minutes for December 10,
1990 as published. Motion carried 4-0-1; Sandstad abstained.
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. KMSP CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS, (91-1-Z-P-SPR) by Kraus Anderson Company.
Request for a Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 109.68 acres; Planned Unit
Development District Review on 5.63 acres with a waiver for a broadcast tower height of 120
feet; Zoning District Change from C-Reg to C-Reg-Ser on 5.63 acres with shoreland variances
to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals; Site Plan Review on 5.63 acres; Preliminary Plat 7.2
acres into one lot and one outlot for construction of a 47,700 square foot building to be known
as KMSP TV, Channel 9. A public hearing. Location: Northwest quadrant of Viking Drive
and Prairie Center Drive.
k
Jack Amdahl, representing the proponent, stated that the request was for a rezoning of the
property.and a variance for the 120 foot tower. Amdahl believed that the rezoning of the
property would be of benefit to the community due to the reduction of traffic conflicts. The
rezoning would result in a downgrade of the property to a service district(C-Reg-Ser). Amdahl
stated that the site was conducive to satellite signal transmission. Amdahl stressed that a
• transmission tower was a necessity. The 120-foot tower would be located at the Viking Drive
intersection. The tower would be responsible for outgoing signals. The base material would be
• similar to that of the building exterior. No tower lighting would be required. The building
exterior would be compatible would that of existing building in the area. The exterior building
material would consist of a red brick with an accent band. The tower would be painted almond.
Dodge asked how the paint would hold up under weather conditions. Amdahl replied that this
paint would have a very strong finish and would weather well.
Amdahl stated that it was important that the tower structure be rigid; movement of the tower
would result in transmission interference. He added that a 3-leg tower was needed for adequate
transmission. A 10-foot high building would be located adjacent to the base of the tower. A
garden wall would be constructed for screening. A curved wall would also be constructed to
identify the building and provide additional screening for the base of the tower.
Amdahl reported that the service areas would be located in the rear of the building. An
additional smaller monument sign would be constructed at the north entrance to the facility.
Sandstad asked if the 10-foot building adjacent to the tower was a recent addition to the plan and
if there was any possibility it could be eliminated. Amdahl replied that the building would house
amplifier equipment and was a necessity in this location.
Norman asked why the tower was being placed in the front of the building and so close to the
street. Amdahl replied that this was the optimum location on the site.
• Bauer asked if KMSP had a tower at its present location in Edina. Dale Beckman, representing
the proponent, replied that there was a tower located in Edina. Beckman emphasized that
landscaping had been used to draw the attention away from the tower and its base.
Amdahl continued that all setback requirements had been met. He noted that the initial phase
of the project would be short a few parking spaces; however, the history of parking requirements
for KMSP showed that parking provided would be adequate. All overhead doors would be
located at the rear of the building. The eastern view of the building would provide the corporate
image and the western portion of the building would have a small service delivery area which
would be well screened and bermed.
Sandstad asked if there would be lighting on the tower. Amdahl replied there would be no
lighting on the tower. He noted that any tower below 200 feet did not require lighting.
Amdahl noted that the 120-foot tower fell well within the height average for towers in Eden
Prairie. Amdahl stated that screening would be difficult from a east to west direction due to
interference with satellite transmissions. He believed that the view of the satellite would be only
a glimpse because of the existing trees.
Dale Beckman believed that this project was appropriate for this property because of a reduction
in traffic to the area and the reduced impact on utilities. Beckman noted that one additional
• outlot would be needed. Access to the facility would be from Prairie Center Drive and Viking
Drive. Beckman stated that utility accesses were in place currently. Large green areas would
• be provided throughout the property.
Sandstad asked if he was correct that the elevation at the base of the tower was 20 feet lower
than the northern property elevation. Beckman replied that this was correct. Beckman added
that the landscaping provided did meet code requirements and would consist of both conifer and
deciduous trees. Beckman requested that the proponent be allowed to work with Staff further
regarding a solution to the screening along Viking Drive. Beckman also noted that it was
important that any screening provided at the tower base would not obscure the view of the KMSP
name band.
Beckman stated that the proponent would like to see a sidewalk provided to Viking Drive in lieu
of the Staff recommendation for a sidewalk along Prairie Center Drive. Beckman noted that
there would be approximately a 6-foot drop in grade along Prairie Center Drive.
Norman asked if further development in the area would pose any problems for transmission in
the future. Herb Margolis, representing the proponent, stated that when this site was chosen it
was determined that all development to the west had been completed.
Franzen asked if a problem would arise if a 20-story building was constructed to the south; next
to the Marriott Hotel. Margolis replied that the main concern was a direct line to the tower or
the satellite. Amdahl noted that as the satellite looked to the south it would actually be tilted
upward. The main signals sent out by the tower go to the north and toward downtown.
• Franzen reported that towers are actually common lace in Eden Prairie. While the height of
P Y P g
the tower can't be diminished, the appearance of the base can be controlled. Franzen believed
that the sculptural wall and plant material is a good start in screening the base of the tower.
Staff did not have a particular preference for the location of the tower or if a monopole or lattice
structure is used. Franzen added that possibly a monopole would be more attractive. Franzen
stated that Staff was open to suggestions as to how the ground mounted dishes could be screened,
meet the City's objectives, and not interfere with transmissions.
Dodge asked how Staff felt about the alternative suggestion by the proponent for the sidewalk
location. Franzen replied that Staff would be willing to look at the alternative. He added that
Staff s recommendation provided a connection to an existing system.
Sandstad asked the proponent why a monopole system would not work. Margolis replied that
any vibration or swaying would result in interference. Sandstad asked if the proponent was
aware of any other TV Station operating with a monopole system. Margolis replied no.
There were no comments from the audience.
MOTION 1:
Hallett moved, seconded by Bauer.to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0-0.
MOTION 2:
• Hallett moved, seconded by Bauer to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of
KMSP for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment to the overall Southwest Crossing
Planned Unit Development Concept on 109.68 acres for construction of a 47,700 sq. ft.
corporate headquarters for KMSP TV, Channel 9, based on plans dated January 8, 1991, subject
to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated January 11, 1991, with the deletion of
recommendation 4.B. Motion carried 5-0-0.
MOTION 3:
Hallett moved, seconded by Bauer to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of
KMSP for Planned Unit Development District Review, with waiver for a broadcast tower height
of 120 ft., and Zoning District Change from C-Reg to C-Reg-Ser on 5.63 acres, for construction
of a 47,700 sq. ft. corporate headquarters for KMSP TV, Channel 9, based on plans dated
January 8, 1991, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated January 11, .1991,
with the deletion of recommendation 4.B. Motion carried 5-0-0.
MOTION 4:
Hallett moved, seconded by Bauer to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of
KMSP for Site Plan Review for a 47,700 sq. ft. corporate headquarters for KMSP TV, Channel
9, based on plans dated January 8, 1991, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report
• dated January l 1, '1991, with the deletion of recommendation 4.B. Motion carried 5-0-0.
MOTION 5:
Hallett moved, seconded by Bauer to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of
KMSP for Preliminary Plat of 7.2 acres into one lot and one outlot for construction of a 47,700
sq. ft. corporate headquarters for KMSP TV, Channel 9, based on plans dated January 8, 1991,
subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated January 11, 1991, with the deletion of
recommendation 4.B. Motion carried 5-0-0.
B. AMOCO, (91-2-Z-SPR) by Amoco Oil Company. Request for Planned Unit Development
Concept Amendment on 21 acres; Planned Unit Development District Review on 21 acres with
waivers; Zoning District Amendment and Site Plan Review within the Community Commercial
District on 0.8 acres for construction of a gas station/food shop to be known as Amoco. A
public hearing. Location: southeast corner of Mitchell Road and Martin Drive.
John Pope, representing the proponent, presented plans for a 1000 square foot gas
station/convenience store facility on .8 acres. The car wash would be located in the southern
portion of the property. The size of the-project had increased by approximately 15%. Parking
would be located to the west of the station and stacking for the car wash was provided along the
perimeter of the property. Pope noted that Staff had stressed the importance of architectural
compatibility with Edenvale Crossings; the proponent would utilize a beige brick with a dark
• facia. He added that the canopy facia would match the Edenvale Crossing Shopping Center and
office building.
Norman stated that there was not a shopping center in this location at this time and asked how
it could guarantee compatibility. Pope replied that the gas station would be consistent with what
was proposed for the shopping center and office.
Dodge asked if the proponent was in agreement with the Staff recommendations. Pope replied
that regarding the signage issue, the owner believed that a free-standing sign would be more
successful. Pope added that 12 to 18 inches of berming would be constructed along Mitchell
Road; however, the proponent would like to address this at a later time.
Dodge asked if the columns would be painted or brick-faced as requested. Pope replied that the
proponent would prefer to paint the columns.
Sandstad asked if Amoco had a design which would not give the appearance of a little building
under a large canopy. A project engineer for Amoco replied that a rear lot prototype was
available; however, it would not work on this site. He added that this was the only design which
would work on this particular lot.
Franzen reported that this project had first been reviewed and approved as a concept approval
only. Staff requested that the plan be reviewed in further detail to ensure an architectural blend
with other buildings in the area. Franzen noted that Amoco had added a slope to the canopy to
• blend in with other buildings. He added that the brick-faced columns would match those of the
center. . Franzen stated that because of a potential for robbery the screening would only screen
the car stacking and would not screen the building itself. Franzen noted that a pylon sign had
not been contemplated in the initial stages. Staff did not have a problem with Amoco having a
pylon sign; however, there would be two other buildings in the area which could also request
a sign. Franzen reviewed the three alternatives for signs addressed in the Staff Report. He
added that Staff would also like to review another alternative for the use of smaller pylon signs.
Franzen noted that Staff was most comfortable with recommendation 2.
Bauer favored Alternate #3 regarding signs. Bauer believed that it would be a worse scenario
to have an empty building because a business failed. Bauer further believed that signage was
very important in this particular business.
Norman supported the Staff recommendation for Alternate #2.
Hallett asked if this station would operate 24 hours a day. Harlan McGregor replied that this
had not been determined at this time, but it would either be open 24 hours a day or open from
6 AM to 11 PM. McGregor added that the site evaluation had been based on a sign which stated
the price of gas. He added that price was a very sensitive issue. McGregor stated that Amoco
had an experience with a station in the northern suburbs where after a pylon sign with pricing
had been installed the business volume increased by approximately 33%.
Norman asked if this was a new concept to separate the car wash from the gas station. Pope
• replied that the car wash in this instance was separated due to the stacking problem. McGregor
added that studies had shown that customers did not want to walk further than necessary from
the pumps to the pay point and, therefore, the decision to separate the car wash from the gas
station.
Sandstad asked if a design was possible to have the canopy appear to come out from the
building. McGregor replied that adequate airflow was needed due to the air conditioning units
located on the roof.
Hallett asked when construction would begin. Pope replied if approval granted construction
would begin in early Spring 1991.
Dodge asked for direction from the Planning Commission regarding the pylon signage.
Hallett asked if Staff was comfortable in waiting to move the water line. Franzen replied that
this line was the major water line for the City and did not want to disturb the line until
necessary.
Dodge asked why Staff was requesting that the columns be brick faced. Franzen replied that the
gas station was part of a PUD approval and Staff wanted the columns to blend with the columns
in the proposed shopping center.
• Franzen stated that an agreement on the size and shape of the sign needed to be made in advance.
Bauer believed that a separate sign for the gas station was important.
Dodge asked if Staff believed that all three facilities would request a pylon sign. Franzen replied
that based on past experience he believed that all three would request signs.
Whitney Patton, representing the proponent, believed that it was important to establish a criteria
for uniform size and design.
Franzen asked if the Planning Commission would like the proponent to return to the Commission
for sign approval. He added that Alternate # 3 would restrict the proponent adequately.
Hallett stated that the City needed to be protected from having the signs too close together.
Hallett suggested that if Staff was not comfortable with the proponents recommendation for
signage Staff should let the City Council know prior to their approval. Franzen replied-that the
City Council had very strong feelings regarding signage along Highway 169.
Sandstad asked if there were specific guidelines in place regarding the distance between signs.
Pope replied that the requirement was 200 feet on center. Sandstad believed that the building
design was more offensive than the signs.
Robert McCarthy, 14363 Fairway Drive, stated opposition to the proposal. McCarthy supported
• the continuance of a residential atmosphere in this area. He did not believe that these services
were needed in this neighborhood.
Norman asked McCarthy how he believed that the development of Highway 212 would affect
the residential atmosphere in this area. McCarthy replied that he objected to the gas station and
car wash.
Franzen noted that the property had been guided commercial since the early 1970's. He added
that at one time the proposal was for a large shopping center and this had been reduced to a strip
mall.
Sandstad noted that the McCarthy property was approximately 500 feet away from this site.
Hallett stated that while he might agree that there was not a need in the area, this is a free
enterprise system and the plan was within the City's guidelines.
MOTION 1:
Bauer moved, seconded by Norman to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0-0.
MOTION 2:
. Bauer moved, seconded by Norman to recommend to the City Council approval of the request
of Amoco Oil Company for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment to the overall
Edenvale Crossings Planned Unit Development Concept on 21 acres for construction of a gas
station/food shop based on plans dated December 14, 1990, subject to the recommendations of
the Staff Report dated January 11, 1991, and the-discussion tonight specific to signage. Add to
Item 3 under Signage; that equal distance spacing between signs be maintained. Motion carried
5-0-0.
MOTION 3:
Bauer moved, seconded by Norman to recommend to the City Council approval of the request
of Amoco Oil Company for Planned Unit Development District Review on 21 acres, with
waivers, for construction of a gas station/food shop based on plans dated December 14, 1990,
subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated January 11, 1991, and the discussion
tonight specific to signage. Add to Item 3 under Signage; that equal distance spacing between
signs be maintained. Motion carried 5-0-0.
MOTION 4:
Bauer moved, seconded by Norman to recommend to the City Council approval of the request
of Amoco Oil Company for Zoning District Amendment within the Community Commercial
• District on 0.8 acre for construction of a gas station/food shop based on plans dated December
14, 1990, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated January 11, 1991, and the
• discussion tonight specific to signage. Add to Item 3,under Signage; that equal distance spacing
between signs be maintained. Motion carried 5-0-0.
MOTION 5:
Bauer moved, seconded by Norman to recommend to the City Council approval of the request
of Amoco Oil Company for Site Plan Review for construction of a gas station/food shop based
on plans dated December 14, 1990, subject to recommendations of the Staff Report dated January
11, 1991, and the discussion tonight specific to signage. Add to Item 3 under Signage; that
equal distance spacing between signs be maintained. Motion carried 5-0-0.
V. OLD BUSINESS
A. POST OFFICE
Franzen reported that when the Post Office was initially approved the Post Office had agreed to
return to the Planning Commission when the final plan revisions had been completed. Franzen
added that Staff had met with Post Office officials this morning, and plans will be revised in
accordance with Staff recommendations and/or compromises to the satisfaction of both parties.
. Franzen stated that no Planning Commission action was necessary.
Dodge asked if this proposal would proceed to the City Council. Franzen replied no.
Hallett asked when construction would begin. Franzen replied that construction would begin this
summer.
VI. PLANNER'S REPORT
A. IRRIGATION ORDINANCE--a public meeting.
Franzen reported that upon direction from the City Council an Irrigation Ordinance had been
drafted and was before the Planning Commission for recommendations.
Hallett asked for clarification on how the ordinances in Edina and Maple Grove worked related
to the 2 for 1. Franzen replied that Eden Prairie's current bond requirement would be for one
full year's growing season. He added that the City would hold the security until the project was
brought into compliance. Hallett then asked what the cost difference was between one year and
two years. Jim Ostenson, representing the Developer's Forum, replied that a bond was very
difficult if not impossible for a developer to obtain. He added that a letter of credit went against
the developer's ability to borrow money and affected the cash flow. Ostenson noted that the
• actual cost was not significant.
Ostenson stated that he and members of the Developer's Forum had met with Staff to discuss the
• ordinance. Developers voiced concern that this was another ordinance which removed flexibility
and creativity from developers. Ostenson believed that Eden Prairie was already tough on
development and questioned if it was necessary to take away all latitude from the developers.
Ostenson stated that the second concern was whether this was actually a conservation ordinance.
He questioned if the purpose was actually to save trees and shrubs or lawns. Ostenson also
questioned if it was realistic to draft an ordinance based on a 100 year drought. Regarding water
conservation; Ostenson believed that more water would be used with the use of sprinkler
systems. He added that Eden Prairie currently uses 3 million gallons of water a day; however,
during the summer months this figure currently climbs to 18 million gallons.
Ostenson voiced a concern regarding the cost of the system. He stated that the installation costs
were expensive, but there were also continuing maintenance costs to consider. The cost related
to residential projects would be high. Ostenson asked if an ordinance was really necessary. He
added that a policy had been in place for some time and seemed to be working effectively.
Tom Larsen, 6962 Woodlawn Drive, supported Ostenson's remarks regarding conservation issues
and the taking away of flexibility from the developer. Larsen believed that developers needed
to look at alternative methods of landscaping. Larsen questioned if this ordinance was productive
related to good water management, especially since Eden Prairie operated from a deep well
system. Larsen was also concerned about the ongoing costs involved. Larsen opposed the
ordinance and questioned why the City wanted to fix something which wasn't broken.
• Char Johnson, representative for commercial real estate developers, concurred with Larsen's
statements regarding water conservation. Johnson was concerned about the image of Eden
Prairie by the development community. Johnson encouraged the Planning Commission to vote
against this ordinance.
Dodge asked why public properties were not covered by this ordinance. Dodge believed that if
the City was going to ask developers to provide irrigation systems then the City should also be
expected to do the same. Franzen replied that the exemption was for schools and churches.
Dodge asked if the ordinance was originated based on aesthetics. Franzen replied that the City
believed that if this much effort was put into landscaping, preservation needed to be addressed.
Franzen added that many facility installed systems on their own once vegetation had been lost.
Sandstad did not believe that this issue should be put into an ordinance form. Sandstad believed
that irrigation systems were actually a waste of water. Sandstad further believed that irrigation
systems would be difficult to control during a water ban.
Bauer did not believe that sprinkler systems would actually meet the objectives of the ordinance.
Bauer believed that if properly managed a sprinkler system might conserve water and preserve
vegetation; however, the majority of the systems currently installed were not properly managed.
Norman believed that the installation of an irrigation system should be left to the developer.
• Norman further believed that in today's economy the City might be jeopardizing development
with additional restraints.
Dodge asked how difficult it was for the City to monitor the landscaping and have it replaced
if necessary. Franzen replied that it was difficult at times because the City was not dealing with
the original owner. Franzen added that it did take Staff time to monitor the problems.
Hallett noted that not all developers were responsible.
Franzen noted that there was very little property left in Eden Prairie for apartment and industrial
development.
Dodge stated that the main problem was that public lands were not covered by the ordinance.
Sandstad believed that it could be documented that irrigation
systems should not be used based on DNR, EPA findings.
Franzen noted that Staff had proceeded with this project based on direction from the City
Council.
Larsen stated that if irrigation systems were necessary for the
survival of vegetation, then maybe alternative types of plant material should be considered which
. would survive on their own.
Bauer stressed that irrigation systems only conserved water if used properly.
MOTION:
Sandstad moved, seconded by Norman to recommend to the City Council denial of the proposed
amendment to City Code Chapter 11 to adopt the irrigation ordinance. Motion carried 5-0-0.
The reasons for denial: lack of demonstrated need, factual proof not provided that the ordinance
would indeed conserve water, and the ordinance did not include public property.
VU. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION:
Bauer moved, seconded by Hallett to adjourn the meeting at 10:00 PM. Motion carried 5-0-0.
•