Planning Commission - 09/11/1989 AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, September 11, 1989
7:30 p.m.
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairperson Julianne Bye, Richard Anderson, Christine Dodge,
Robert Hallett, Charles Ruebling, Douglas Sandstad
STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen, Senior
Planner; Don Uram, Assistant Planner; Deb Edlund, Recording
Secretary
Pledge of Allegiance -- Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
III. MINUTES
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
*NOTE: THE TIMES LISTED BELOW ARE TENTATIVE, AND MAY BE SIGNIFICANTLY EARLIER, OR LATER '
THAN LISTED.
(7:35) A. SHORES OF MITCHELL LAKE, by MR-USHOT. Request for Zoning District Change
from Rural and R1-22 to R1-13.5 on 94.8 acres with Shoreland variances to
be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Preliminary Platting of 94.8 acres
into 175 single family lots, 3 outlots, and road right-of-way,
Environmental Assessment Worksheet Review on 94.8 acres as part of a 450
acre phased action E.A.W. for construction of residential development.
Location: South of State Highway #5 and west of Mitchell Lake. A
continued public hearing.
(8:00) B. SCHROERS PUD, by BDD Partnership. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan
Amendment for the relocation of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA)
Line to include an additional 32.2 acres of property, Planned Unit
Development Concept Review on 129.8 acres, Planned Unit Development
District Review on 129.8 acres with waivers, Zoning District Change from
Rural to R1-9.5 on 24 acres and from Rural to R1-13.5 on 8.2 acres,
Preliminary Platting of 129.8 acres into 77 single family lots, 3 outlots,
and road right-of-way, Environmental Assessment Worksheet Review on 129.8
acres as part of a 450 acre phased action E.A.W. for construction of a
residential development. Location: North of Rice Marsh Lake, just east
of the Chanhassen-Eden Prairie City limits. A continued public hearing.
(9:15) C. NEW HORIZON CHILD CARE, by New Horizon Child Care. Request for Zoning
District Change from Rural and Public to C-Reg-Ser on approximately 2
acres, and Site Plan Review on approximately two acres for a day care
center. Location: North of Prairie Center Drive, east of the Arby's
restaurant. A public hearing.
Agenda
Eden Prairie Planning Commission
Monday, September 11, 1989
Page 2
(9:45) D. TECH 10, by Hoyt Development Company. Request for Zoning District Change,
from Rural to I-2 on 5.6 acres, Preliminary Plat of 5.6 acres into one
lot, Site Plan Review of 5.6 acres for construction of a 73,367 square
foot office warehouse. Location: 74th Street and Golden Triangle Drive.
A public hearing.
V. OLD BUSINESS
VI. NEW BUSINESS
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
A. Suggestions for consideration for variance on flag lots.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVED MINUTES
MONDAY, September 11, 1989 7; 30 FM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7600 Executive Drive
COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Julianne Bye, Robert
Hallett, Charles Ruebling, Doug
Sandstad
COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Richard Anderson, Christine Dodge,
Doug Fell
STAFF MEMBERS : Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Don
Uram, Assistant Planner; Alan Gray,
City Engineer; Deb Edlund, Recording
Secretary
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
I . APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION:
Sandstad moved, seconded by Ruebling to approve the Agenda as
published . Motion carried 4-0-0.
II . MEMBERS REPORTS
Bye announced that the City had officially received a letter
from Doug Fell resigning from his position on the Planning
Commission. Franzen commented that the City Council would be
interviewing for a replacement at the September 19, 1989
Council meeting.
III . MINUTES
MOTION:
Sandstad moved, seconded by Ruebling to approve the Minutes of
the July 24, 1989 Planning Commission meeting as published and
amended.
CORRECTION:
Page 9, Paragraph 3, sentence 2, should read : Franzen replied
that he would check with the Engineering Department . Motion
carried 3-1. Hallett abstained .
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. SHORES OF MITCHELL LAKE, by MR-USHOT. Request for Zoning
District Change from Rural and R1-22 to R1-13 . 5 on 94 . 8
acres with Shoreland variances to be reviewed by the Board
Planning commission Minutes 2 September 11, 1989
• of Appeals, Preliminary platting of 94 . 8 acres into 175
single family lots, 3 outlots, and road right-of-way,
Environmental Assessment Worksheet Review on 94 . 8 acres as
part of a 450 acre phased action E.A.W. for construction
of a residential development . Location: South of State
Highway 95 and west of Mitchell Lake . A continued public
hearing.
Franzen reported that the developer had revised the plans
in accordance with recommendations presented at the
previous meetings .
,lack Buxel, representing the proponent, stated that a
shared driveway would be used for the two lots on the
point resulting in approximately a 40-0 tree savings .
MnDot had approved the plan to construct a berm
approximately 8 to 10 feet above the building elevations
with additional landscaping. One lot had been eliminated
from the northern cul-de-sac. A fence would be
constructed along Highway 5 to mitigate the noise . The
fence would be designed with staggered heights .
Ruebling asked what the fence would be made of. Buxel
replied 1 inch material without gaps .
• Hallett asked what type of wood would be used . Buxel
replied a treated material . Hallett asked if the fence
would be visible from Highway 5 and added that he was
concerned about the appearance of the fence . Franzen
replied that a portion of the fence would be visible;
however, the proponent could use plantings to mask the
appearance . Hallett asked if Staff would be working
closely with the proponent regarding the fence . Franzen
replied that Staff was requesting additional details
regarding the fence design. Franzen added that if the
fence was to have no gaps, it would require special
construction. Hallett recommended a decorative fence, yet
have it be unobtrusive.
Sandstad stated that he was more concerned about the sound
impact than the appearance . Sandstad believed that the
regulations called for a 2 1/2" thickness . Buxel replied
that the Company which had conducted the testing, TWin
City Testing, had indicated that a minimum requirement was
1 inch without gaps . Sandstad did not believe that it was
practical to accomplish the sound mitigation with a 1 inch
fence . Buxel added that the proponent wanted to create an
attractive fence and would work closely with Staff .
Sandstad recommended the use of a thicker wood. Franzen
stated that Staff had asked for a PCA Review and added
that the whole EAW would be reviewed with careful
attention given to the noise issue .
Buxel stated that a temporary gravel road would be
Planning Commission Minutes 3 September 11, 1989
constructed for emergency access which would connect to
the existing street. The proponent was requesting that
the temporary road be barricaded and only used for
emergency vehicles . The road would have to be plowed in
the winter .
Ruebling asked Johnson if he had reviewed the Staff Report
and concurred with the recommendations . Johnson replied
that he did not believe that the final plat approval was
the appropriate method to assure proper scheduling and
flow of the project. Johnson believed that City control
should be through the building permit or occupancy permit
process . Johnson requested clarification on the number of
lots left in Phase II . Johnson stated that he did not
want to be dependent on Tandem to develop their project
before he had access to his project and, therefore, asked
if the permanent street referred to in the Staff Report
was 84th Street. Johnson further believed that if the
final plat approval was used to determine the number of
homes allowed, a time lag would be created .
Hallett asked Franzen if Staff was comfortable with access
from 184th Street . Franzen replied that there were two
possible routes for the road system; if Dell Road was
paved the development could access from 184th Street or
• the other alternative through the Tandem Development.
Ruebling asked if Dell Road would have to be paved prior
to using 184th Street. Franzen replied yes .
Franzen reported that Staff recommended approval of the
project based on the recommendations outlined in the Staff
Report . A tree replacement plan needed to be provided,
the fence needed to be decorative and unobtrusive, a
maintenance program for the temporary road should be
determined with the Engineering Department. Further
clarification on the timing of Highway 5 needed to be
established. Franzen stated that the City Council had
given the direction that the Southwest Study or the
improvements of Highway 5 should not prohibit the review
of projects; however, the Council had not yet determined
exactly how the number of units would be established.
Ruebling asked if the upgrading of County Road 4 and
Highway 5 would take another year to complete . City
Engineer Alan Gray replied that the intersection would be
accomplished in a phased construction process, with only
one lane provided in either direction through this
construction season and also next year 's season.
Bye concluded then that 3 items would be added to the
Staff recommendations; 1) Fence design, 2) PCA Review, and
3 ) Maintenance agreement for the temporary road.
Sandstad asked if the other Commission members considered
Planning Commission Minutes 4 September 11, 1989
it appropriate to specify the height of the fence .
Ruebling believed that the details should be worked out
with Staff .
Ruebling asked if the City Council would be looking for a
recommendation from the Planning Commission on the
appropriate approach to determine the number of units
allowed. Franzen replied that he believed the Council
would make a determination after hearing comments at the
public hearing for this project . Franzen added that Staff
believed that it would be easier to work with 3 to 4
developers rather than individual homeowners . Ruebling
stated that he would concur with the staff recommendations
on the number of lots allowed and the Final Plat method of
control . Ruebling asked Gray who should be responsible
for the temporary road . Gray replied that the City would
prefer that the developer accepted the responsibility.
MOTION•
Ruebling moved, seconded by Sandstad to close the public
hearing. Motion carried 4-0-0 .
MOTION 2•
. Ruebling moved, seconded by Sandstad to recommend to the
City Council approval of the request of MR-USHOT for
Zoning District Change from Rural and R1-22 to R1-13 . 5 on
94 . 8 acres, with Shoreland variances to be reviewed by the
Board of Appeals, for a residential development to be
known as Shores of Mitchell Lake, based on revised plans
dated September 6, 1989, subject to the recommendations of
the Staff Reports dated June 9, August 11, and September
81 1989 with the following additions : 1) The design of
the fence shall be reviewed by and comply with the PCA
Standards as intended, 2 ) Developer work with Staff
regarding the aesthetics of the fence, 3 ) Maintenance of
the temporary road shall be that of the developer . Motion
carried 4-0-0 .
MOTION 3 •
Ruebling moved, seconded by Sandstad to recommend to the
City Council approval of the request of MR-USHOT for
Preliminary Platting of 94 . 8 acres into 175 single family
lots, three outlots, and road right-of-way, for
residential development to be known as Shores of Mitchell
Lake, based on revised plans dated September 6, 1989,
subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated
June 9, August 11, and September 8, 1989 with the
following additions: 1) The design of the fence shall be
reviewed by and comply with the PCA Standards as intended,
2 ) Developer work with Staff regarding the aesthetics of
the fence, 3) Maintenance of the temporary road shall be
Planning Commission Minutes 5 September 11, 1989
that of the developer . Motion carried 4-0-0 .
MOTION 4 :
Ruebling moved, seconded by Sandstad to recommend to the
City Council approval of the request of MR-USHOT for a
Finding of No Significant Impact for the Environmental
Assessment Worksheet for the Shores of Mitchell Lake, part
of a phased action Environmental Assessment Worksheet,
based on revised plans dated September 6, 1989, subject to
the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated June 9,
August 11, and September 8, 1989 with the following
additions : 1) The design of the fence shall be reviewed
by and comply with the PCA Standards as intended, 2)
Developer work with Staff regarding the aesthetics of the
fence, 3) Maintenance of the temporary road shall be that
of the developer. Motion carried 4-0-0 .
Hallett asked Johnson when he expected the first home to
be built. Johnson replied that he would like to have the
first home completed by next fall; however, that would
depend on the utilities being extended . Hallett commented
that he appreciated the changes the proponent had made
along the lakeshore.
• Bye also commended the proponent for the willingness to
work with Staff and the Planning Commission.
B. SCHROERS PUD, by BDD Partnership. Request for
Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment for the relocation of
the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) Line to include
an additional 31. 4 acres of property, Planned Unit
Development Concept Review on 129 . 8 acres, Planned Unit
Development District Review on 31 . 4 acres with waivers,
Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9 . 5 on 20 . 6 acres
and from Rural to R1-13 . 5 on 10 . 8 acres, Preliminary
Platting on 129 . 8 acres into 76 single family lots, 3
outlots, and road right-of-way, Environmental Assessment
Worksheet Review on 129 . 8 acres as part of a 450 acre
phased action E.A.W. for construction of a residential
development . Location: North of Rice Marsh Lake, just
east of the Chanhassen-Eden Prairie City limits. A
continued public hearing.
Bye stated that it would be the goal of the Planning
Commission to come to a decision tonight regarding this
project.
Don Patton, representing the proponent, stated that the
developers had been through several Planning Commission
meetings and had worked with Staff to make the necessary
changes to the plan as requested. Patton outlined the
requests being made by the proponent. The EAW Reports had
been submitted for review. The proponent was requesting
Planning Commission Minutes 6 September 11, 1909
• the City' s support in recommending to the Metropolitan
Council a 16 acre trade and a 16 acre expansion of the
MUSA Line to allow for the development of Phase I of the
proposed project. Patton stated that transition had been
an issue along Dell Road and along the Chanhassen border .
Patton noted that it would be difficult to provide a berm
along Dell Road because of the pond and that negotiations
were underway with Datasery for berming along the
Chanhassen border . He added that Datasery was currently
considering an expansion and a proposal being considered
was to provide a common berm in lieu of two separate
berms. Patton believed that building permits or occupancy
permits would be a better method to determine the number
of units allowed rather than the final plat method.
Patton requested that the Planning Commission grant
approval of the zoning requests . He added that a grading
plan had not been submitted because of the question of the
dimensioning of the lots ; however, the proponent would
continue to work with Staff on this issue .
Uram reported that the Staff Report addressed several
issues with a focus on the request for the MUSA Line
expansion. Uram noted that the proponent had tried to
make the necessary changes for the PUD request and had
been advised by Staff not to make further plan changes at
this time . Staff recommended that the platting and zoning
requests not be approved until the MUSA Line expansion had
been addressed . Uram reviewed the Staff Recommendations
outlined on pages 6 and 7 of the Staff Report. He noted
that all of the recommendations were based on the Planning
Commissions acceptance of the MUSA Line Change. Uram
reported that there was a 120 day deadline on the
Preliminary Plat request and added that the only way this
item could be continued would be if the proponent were to
request an extension.
Ruebling asked the status of the feasibility study for
Dell Road . Gray replied that 4 alternatives have been
developed for Staff 's consideration, an assessment method
needed to be addressed, and there were wetland
complications . Gray believed that the study would be
completed within one month to six weeks . Gray added that
there was enough flexibility in the proponents proposals
to be able to come to an agreement for the road alignment.
Ruebling then asked if the assessment method being
considered would provide for the construction of Dell Road
without development occurring outside the MUSA Line . Gray
replied that a large portion of Dell Road was being
constructed to provide access for this proposal and the
Tandem parcel . He added that Dell Road did not need to be
. extended all the way to Highway 212 at this time .
Hallett questioned if the MUSA Line expansion had been
substantiated by the proponent .
Planning Commission Minutes 7 September 11, 1989
Sandstad believed that the MUSA Line expansion was not
appropriate at this time .
Dick Feerick stated that the proponent had met with
Strgar-Roscoe to look at the Dell Road alignment and
assessment method . The proponent recommended the
assessment method outlined in the Southwest Area Study.
Feerick stated that the Metropolitan Council was waiting
for City action regarding the MUSA Line expansion. He
said that the proponents had been making every effort to
stay within the Southwest Area Study guidelines and
believed that justification for the expansion was the
extension of Dell Road and to allow for the use of this
parcel of property.
Ruebling was concerned that the Metropolitan Council would
not favor the land trade because a major portion of the
land was not developable due to the right-of-way for
Highway 212 . Ruebling was also concerned because no
guarantees had been received from the property owners of
the land to be traded.
Feerick stated that the developers had met with Ken
Balich, which was one of the property owners involved in
the land trade. Feerick said that he had not been told
that the Metropolitan Council would not accept a land
trade and added that he believed that the land trade would
be given reasonable consideration.
Patton showed the Planning Commission the area which was
developable and stated that he believed this was a viable
project which would provide the City with the land
necessary to construct Dell Road. Patton said that the
proponent would continue to work with the property owners
involved in the trade.
Uram stated that the recommendation for a MUSA Line
expansion would need the City's support to be considered
by the Metropolitan Council . Uram noted that Staff had
requested letters of transference from the property owners
involved in the land trade, but had not received them at
this time .
Ruebling asked Uram if he had misunderstood the
Metropolitan Council 's criteria. Uram replied that the
City would not have answers until it presented the
proposal to the Metropolitan Council . Ruebling believed
that the criteria had stated that property to be used for
road right-of-ways was not considered as developable
property by the Metropolitan Council .
• Bye stated that the property may have been considered as
developable at one time, but because of the Highway 212
proposal it was no longer considered developable . Uram
Planning commission Minutes 8 September 1'1_, 1989
• replied that the City did not know if the property would
be considered in a trade . Bye believed this would be a
precedent setting issue for the neat several years .
Hallett believed that the MUSA Line expansion had not been
justified .
Sandstad was concerned about the lack of written
commitments from the property owners involved in the
trade.
Bob Bjorkland, representing the proponent, stated that the
property owners wanted to know the Planning commission's
position before making written commitments . Bjorkland
recommended that the written commitments be a condition
prior to City Council approval .
Feerick believed that the proponent had worked with Staff
and Director of Planning Chris Enger to provide a viable
project . Feerick stated that Enger had believed that
there were benefits to the MUSA Line change and had
presented those benefits in the Staff Report. Feerick
believed that the proponents would be able to accomplish
all of its goals and also believed that they had the
knowledge and experience to justify the MUSA Line
• expansion to the Metropolitan Council .
Uram stated that the Staff Report had been written as a
performance report and if the developer could not
accomplish these requirements, Staff was not recommending
approval of the project.
Patton requested that the Planning Commission review the
benefits to the City outlined in the Staff Report.
Bye asked the proponents if they would be willing to agree
to an extension for consideration of the Preliminary Plat.
Patton replied that they would not.
Uram stated that the Planning Commission needed to
consider if the benefits outweighed the possible
complications presented by a MUSA Line expansion.
Ruebling asked if it would be possible to get statements
from the property owners involved in the trade on a
contingency basis . Franzen stated that letters
transferring the rights of development were all
conditional and contingent, the land owners would retained
the right to develop if the land were not approved for a
trade . Feerick requested clarification on the Planning
• Commission's request . Bye stated that the Planning
Commission would have preferred to have seen written
documentation from the property owners involved in the
land trade .
Planning Commission Minutes 9 September 11, 1989
• Bye stated that she was reluctant to approve the MUSA Line
expansion because it was not a full 32 acre transfer . Bye
was concerned that the Planning Commission was being asked
to advise the City Council on items which it had only been
told would occur .
Hallett commented that the proponent had the right to
proceed to the City Council with or without the Planning
Commission's approval .
MOTION 1•
Hallett moved, seconded by Sandstad to close the public
hearing. Motion carried 4-0-0 .
MOTION 2:
Hallett moved, seconded by Sandstad to recommend to the
City Council denial of the request of BDD Partnership for
Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment for the relocation of
the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) Line for the
Schroers PUD development proposal based on the findings as
follows :
1. The property involved in the land transfer was
part of the right-of-way for Highway 212 .
• 2. Other areas could be developed without the further
extension of Dell Road.
3. Concern for the amount of time and effort required
by City Staff to proceed to the Metropolitan
Council .
4 . Precedent setting issue.
5. There was approximately a 5 year supply of land
within the MUSA Line yet to be developed.
6. No written documentation had been presented to
substantiate the 16 acre trade .
7. Leap-frog development outside the MUSA Line would
be encouraged.
8. The Planning Commission supported the
recommendation of the Southwest Area Study to
limit the number of units in Subsection 1A to 250 .
Ruebling stated that he believed the above reasons logical
and appropriate for a recommendation for denial .
Bye stated that she could not support the project 100"o.
Motion carried 4-0-0 .
MOTION 3•
Ruebling moved, seconded by Sandstad to recommend to the
City Council denial of the request by BDD Partnership for
Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 129. 8 acres.
Motion carried 4-0-0.
Planning Commission Minutes. 10 September 11, 1989
MOTION 4:
Ruebling moved, seconded by Sandstad to recommend to the
City Council denial of the request by BDD Partnership for
Planned Unit Development District Review on 32. 2 acres
with waivers . Motion carried 4-0-0 .
MOTION 5:
Ruebling moved, seconded by Sandstad to recommend to the
City Council denial of the request by BDD Partnership for
Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9 .5 on 15. 7 acres
and from R1-13 . 5 on 8 . 4 acres . Motion carried 4-0-0.
MOTION 6 :
Ruebling moved, seconded by Sandstad to recommend to the
City Council denial of the request by BDD Partnership for
Preliminary Plat of 129 .8 acres into 76 single family
lots, 3 outlots, and road right-of-way. Motion carried 4-
0-0.
MOTION 7 •
Ruebling moved, seconded by Sandstad to recommend to the
City Council denial of the request by BDD Partnership for
Environmental Assessment Worksheet review on 129 . 9 acres .
Motion carried 4-0-0 .
C. NEW HORIZON CHILD CARE, by New Horizon Child Care .
Request for Zoning District Change from Rural and Public
to C-Reg-Ser on approximately 2 acres, and Site Plan
Review on approximately two acres for a day care center .
Location: North of Prairie Center Drive, east of the
Arby's restaurant.
Gene Peterson, representing the proponent, presented a
prototype model . He stated that the proponent had worked
closely with Staff and concurred with the recommendations
outlined in the Staff Report.
Franzen reported that the Staff Report had been written
approximately 10 days prior to tonights meeting and had
recommended a continuation of the project; however, since
that time the proponent had made the revisions necessary
to meet City codes. Staff was concerned that the exterior
material to be used and the color selected would be
compatible with the adjacent buildings. Franzen stated
that if the proponent could pick up on some of the red and
cream colors the plan would be acceptable . Additional
• conifers should be added to buffer the site . Franzen
recommended approval of the project based on the
recommendations outlined in the Staff Report.
Planning Commission Minutes 11 September 11, 1989
• Peterson stated that the colors for the exterior of the
building had been worked out and presented samples to the
Planning Commission. The proponent concurred with the
Staff 's recommendations .
Hallett asked if Staff was comfortable with the colors
being presented tonight. Franzen replied yes .
Sandstad asked if the drive would connect to Arbys .
Peterson replied no and added that Staff had recommended
that the drives not be connected for safety reasons . Bye
stated that there could also be a stacking distance
problem if the drives were connected. Franzen reported
that the Police Department had reviewed the plans.
Peterson stated that New Horizon was developing one of the
first Kid's Clubs in a regional shopping center .
Bye asked if this facility would replace the daycare
located inside the Eden Prairie Center . Greg Tilsch,
representing Homart Development, replied that the facility
inside the center would be the Kid 's Club offering care on
an hourly basis for the shoppers in the center . Tilsch
stated that it was important for the new daycare to be
completed outside so the Kid 's Club could begin operation
prior to the holiday season.
Bye stated that it appeared that all the issues had been
resolved .
Ruebling asked if Staff was comfortable with the plan as
presented tonight . Franzen replied that he was
comfortable with the verbal approval after seeing the
color samples; however, if the Planning Commission was
not, it would be appropriate to continue the item for two
weeks .
Hallett believed that it was important that all the issues
be resolved to Staff 's satisfaction prior to City Council
review.
MOTION 1•
Sandstad moved, seconded by Ruebling to close the public
hearing. Motion carried 4-0-0 .
MOTION 2•
Sandstad moved, seconded by Ruebling to recommend to the
City Council approval of the request of New Horizon Child
Care for Zoning District Change from Rural and Public to
C-Reg-Ser and Site Plan Review on approximately two acres
for a day care center, based on revised plans dated
September 7, 1989, subject to the recommendations of the
Planning commission Minutes 12 Septembex 11, 1989
Staff Report dated September 8, 1989 .
Bye asked the proponent if it was clear that all the
issues needed to be resolved to Staff 's satisfaction
before proceeding to the City Council .
Motion carried 4-0-0 .
D. TECH 10, By Hoyt Development Company. Request for Zoning
District Change, from Rural to I-2 on 5.6 acres,
Preliminary Plat of 5. 6 acres into one lot, Site Plan
Review on 5.6 acres for construction of a 73,367 square
foot office warehouse. Location: 74th Street and Golden
Triangle Drive .
Bob Smith, representing the proponent, presented a slide
presentation to orient the Planning Commission to the
topography and vegetation as it currently exists . The
access to the project would be from Golden Triangle Drive .
Loading docks would be located on the north side of the
building, the office area to the south, with a
manufacturing and warehouse in the middle of the facility.
Ruebling asked how much of the vegetation would be removed
from the hill . Smith replied that all of the vegetation
. would be removed as well as the hill . Smith added that
the wetland vegetation would provide screening for a
portion of the building. Smith presented slides which
showed the green space provided by Hoyt Development on
some of the current projects in the Technology Park area
and added that Hoyt Development was very careful in
establishing adequate setbacks and green space areas . A
berm would be constructed along the east portion of the
property. Parking would be allowed along the east, west,
and southern sides of the building. The building would be
approximately 73,212 square feet with approximately 7, 200
square feet to be used for office space. The building had
a designated tenant which would employee 52 individuals .
90 parking spaces would be provided with an additional 106
proof-of-parking spaces to be provided on the property to
the south. There would be mass grading on the site with
large amounts of fill to be removed from the site . The
total tree loss was estimated at 654 caliper inches .
Staff recommended that 968 caliper inches be replaced.
The plan shown to the Planning Commission had more trees
on the site than what Hoyt Development was comfortable
with. DNR permits would not be necessary because the
storm water discharge would drain above the high water
mark. Permits from the Army Corps of Engineers were
necessary. The exterior of the building was to be
• constructed of precast concrete, off-white in color,
bronze anodized windows, and three loading docks on the
north side . The roof top units will be screened . Smith
stated that Brad Hoyt did not believe that the total
Planning Commission Minutes 13 September 11, 1989
• screen wall of evergreens was necessary to screen the
loading area to the north.
Brad Hoyt stated that the corner of the lot would be 380
feet from Purgatory Creek . He had a long-term lease
signed with a tenant for the space . Hoyt stated that he
and Mr . Cherne were now in agreement regarding the
alignment of the road . Hoyt believed that this tenant
would provide an appropriate use for the property because
of the light trucking dock use. The tenant also had a
light parking space requirement. Hoyt stated that he
could not agree with the trees Staff was requesting to be
replaced on the site . The cost of the trees today was
approximately $100 per inch and up. Hoyt could not see
the benefit in screening a blank wall . Hoyt estimated the
cost of the 14 foot trees proposed along the north end of
the building to be approximately $600 each and believed
this to be excessive . one-third of the site would not be
disturbed by the development . The tree replacement was
being doubled due to the City's view of the building as a
two-story complex. Hoyt stated that the building would
not be visible from Valley View Road . Hoyt believed that
there was an economic penalty because of the two-story
designation. He added that the landscaping costs as
proposed would be equal to 1000, of the building costs.
Hoyt stated that when he left the hill in place as
requested by the City, he had not only left a wooded
knoll, he had left $1,000,000 worth of land . He added
that the hill would have to come down because the parcels
on either side of the knoll were 50 feet lower . Hoyt
stated that he could not go along with planting trees just
to be planting trees with no purpose . Hoyt believed that
Hoyt Development had done more than its share in
preserving the trees .
Sandstad asked why the office space was not facing the
street . Hoyt replied that the tenant 's operation
necessitated the building to be laid-out the way it was
currently designed.
Franzen reported that the Staff Report recommendation for
approval of the project was based on adherence to the Tree
Replacement Policy and, therefore, would not recommend
approval at this time if the proponent was not in
agreement with the City's policy.
Ron Krueger, representing the proponent, asked if the
Planning Commission would grant approval contingent upon
the Tree Replacement Policy issue and landscaping issues
being resolved prior to review by the City Council .
• Ruebling asked Franzen to comment on the 22 foot height .
Franzen replied that when the Landscape Ordinance had been
developed, Staff had taken examples of several different
Planning Commission minutes 14 September 11, 1989
projects throughout the City and determined that 1 inch of
trees should be required for every 320 feet of building
space . Staff believed that anything above 20 feet in
height should be required to have additional landscaping
to mitigate the bulk, height, and mass appearance of the
building. Franzen did not believe this a point which was
negotiable . Ruebling concurred that the building would be
tall and massive in appearance . Franzen added that
consideration had also been given to change the setback
requirements to 100 feet .
Hoyt stated that he was not asking to be exempt from the
ordinance . Bye asked Hoyt if he would agree to the 459
caliper inches proposed . Smith stated that he had added
additional trees above the 459 caliper inch requirement .
Franzen stated that the trees could be replaced on other
Hoyt properties . Hoyt believed that he had paid enough
already on the entire parcel and added that he had already
reforested approximately 80 acres . Hoyt noted that this
policy had come about well after the Technology Park
Project was underway. He stated that he had saved the
hill on the east and did not believe that he had 'to save
all of the trees .
Ruebling stated that the Tree Replacement Policy had been
• designed to prevent reckless destruction of the trees .
Hallett believed that the proponent should not be exempt
from the City's policy and added that the trees could be
distributed on other sites .
Franzen stated that the Staff recommendation was based on
giving the proponent credit for the trees on the hill and
for the land dedicated to the City. Franzen said that
landscaping was not the only possibility to screen the
loading docks and if the number of trees being required
could not fit on this parcel then the trees could be
planted elsewhere.
Ruebling asked which figure was correct; 459 or 968
caliper inches . Franzen replied that because the building
was considered a two-story building the requirement for
tree replacement doubled.
Hoyt stated that 0% of trees had been lost on the other 60
acres already developed . He believed that the development
would be attractive as proposed . Hoyt noted that in the
past he had not requested variances for reductions in
green space and had been a responsible developer .
• Sigmund Helle, 2124 Stanford Avenue, St . Paul, owner of
the property to the north, asked Hoyt how he knew that a
future building would screen a portion of this building.
Helle stated that as owner of the property to the north he
Planning Commission Minutes 15 September 11, 1989
• had not completed the design for a building at this time;
however, he had had discussions with parties interested in
developing corporate headquarters on this site . Helle was
concerned about the loading docks being adequately
screened or Hoyt Development as a good neighbor should
consider having the loading docks face the other
direction. Helle stated that he did not want to cause
problems for another developer, but the loading docks to
the north could create an economic issue for his
development if not adequately screened. Helle requested
that the Planning Commission give clear direction to the
proponent to provide the necessary screening and setbacks
to allow him the opportunity to bring a major corporate
tenant to the area.
. Hoyt stated that there was a wide utility easement between
the two properties and an additional 70 feet of area which
could not be built upon.
Hallett stated that he was concerned about the parking
requirements; if this tenant was not successful and
another tenant were to take over the building. Franzen
replied that the type of use for this facility would be
limited in the future because of the amount of parking
available. Hallett then asked how the City would know if
• a different tenant would take over the building. Franzen
replied that zoning regulations were checked before
occupancy permits were issued . Hallett then asked why the
DNR would not require a permit. Smith replied that the
discharge from the drainage pipe would be above the high
water mark. Hallett asked about the grading issues .
Smith replied that the grading plan would need to be
reviewed by the Watershed District. Franzen added that
the Watershed District permits would be required by the
City prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Hallett stated that he supported Mr . Helle 's concerns
about the screening of his property.
Smith noted that an additional 106 parking spaces were
being provided for proof-of-parking to the south of the
project . Franzen noted that the property provided for
proof-of-parking would not be shared by the property owner
to the south.
Ruebling asked if it would be possible to change the
layout of the building. Hoyt replied that another layout
would not fit this tenant. Franzen stated that Staff did
not have a preference whether the loading docks were on
the north or the south, the important issue was that they
• were adequately screened . Ruebling believed that the
screening would be essential even if the Planning
Commission did not know what was possibly being proposed
for the adjacent property. Ruebling added that one
Planning [_:rsltmiSsirs`_r! Minutes 16 September 11, 1989
development should not place a hardship on another
adjacent development.
Hoyt stated that as a developer, you do not always know
what will be developed adjacent to your parcel . The
loading docks had to be placed somewhere, this was an
industrial park area . The doors to the loading docks were
actually facing west and not facing the street . Hoyt
stated that negotiations had been completed with the
tenant based on this particular layout of the building.
Hallett believed that the proponent should be required to
meet City ordinances and screen the area adequately for
the Helle property. Hallett recommended that the project
be continued for two weeks to allow time to resolve these
issues.
Hoyt stated that timing was critical . Hoyt added that
distance in itself was considered a buffer . Hoyt stated
that he did not have a problem with providing
approximately 90% of the screening. He said he would
adhere to all the City ordinance; however, the Tree
Replacement Policy was not an ordinance and was only a
policy at this time .
• Hallett recommended that the project be continued for two
weeks and publisher) for the October 3, 1989 City Council
meeting, which would be the meeting it would have appeared
on the Agenda had it been approved tonight . Hallett
believed that there were enough unresolved issues to
warrant a continuance.
Bye concurred with Hallett and stated that the Planning
Commission would like to have the opportunity to review
the plan revision prior to Council review. The Planning
Commission's direction to the proponent were to address
the parking and screening issues .
MOTION:
Hallett moved, seconded by Ruebling to continue this item
to the September 25, 1989 Planning Commission meeting and
publish for the October 3, 1989 City Council meeting.
Motion carried 4-0-0.
V. OLD BUSINESS
VI . NEW BUSINESS
Bye noted that there would be a public hearing regarding the
• alignment of Highway 212 in November .
Bye stated that the October 9, 1989 meeting was on a holiday
and would be rescheduled for Tuesday, October 10, 1989 .
Planning Commission Minutes 17 September 11, 1989
VII . PLANNER 'S REPORT
VIII . ADJOURNMENT,
MOTION:
Sandstad moved, seconded by Hallett to adjourn the meeting at
11 :30 PM. Motion carried 4-0-0.