Loading...
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.