Loading...
Planning Commission - 02/22/1988 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, February 22, 1988 7:30 p.m. COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman Ed Schuck, Richard Anderson, Julianne Bye, Christine Dodge, Doug Fell , Robert Hallett, Charles Ruebling STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Don Uram, Assistant Planner; Sue Anderson, Recording Secretary Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call I . APPROVAL OF AGENDA II. MEMBERS REPORTS III. MINUTES IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS (7:35) A. A TO Z RENTAL, by A to Z Rental . Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Reg-Service on 1 .67 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Preliminary Plat of 3.59 acres into one lot and one outlot for construction of a 15,500 square foot retail facility. Location: Southwest corner of Valley View Road and Plaza Drive. (8:05) B. WOODDALE CHURCH, by Wooddale Church. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 31 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review and Zoning District Amendment with the Public Zoning District on 31 acres with variance for structure height to 200 feet, and Environmental Assessment Worksheet Review for the construction of 200,000 square feet of church and educational uses. Location : Southwest corner of Shady Oak Road and Bryant Lake Drive. V. OLD BUSINESS VI . NEW BUSINESS A. Review of DNR Protected Waters Permit No. 88-6186 and No. 88-6208 for temporary drainage and control structure improvements to Little Grass Lake. VII. PLANNER'S REPORT VIII . ADJOURNMENT *NOTE: THE TIMES LISTED ABOVE ARE TENTATIVE, AND MAY BE SIGNIFICANTLY EARLIER, OR LATER, THAN LISTED. MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, February 22, 1988 7:30 PM MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chairman Robert Hallett, Christine Dodge, Julianne Bye, Charles Ruebling, Richard Anderson MEMBERS ABSENT: Ed Schuck, Doug Fell STAFF PRESENT: Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Don Uram, Asst. Planner; Sue Anderson, Recording Secretary I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Motion was made by Bye and seconded by Ruebling to approve the agenda as printed. Motion carried 4-0-0. II. MEMBERS REPORTS None III. MINUTES Motion was made to approve the minutes of the February 2, 1988, Planning Commission meeting with the following corrections: Page 5, Insert after Paragraph 7 to read: Ruebling mentioned that if any vehicles currently being stored on lots that could comply with the ordinance should comply. Page 5, MOTION: Line 3 1) should read: 1) the grandfathering be stipulated to specific vehicles and if they can comply with ordinance they should do so. Motion was made by Ruebling and seconded by Bye to approve the minutes as amended. Motion carried 3-0-1. IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. A TO Z RENTAL, by A to Z Rental. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Reg-Service on 1. 67 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Preliminary Plat of 3 .59 acres into one lot and one outlot for construction of a 15,500 square foot retail facility. Location: Southwest corner of Valley View Road and Plaza Drive. Uram reported the proposed use on this site would include the A to Z Rental Center along with an outdoor storage facility and additional retail space. The building consisting of Eden Prairie Planning Commission -2- February 22, 1988 15,500 square feet would be a combination of retail and warehouse space. The outdoor storage would be for trucks and other heavy equipment. The proponent has submitted an application for a variance for outdoor storage. A to Z Rental received approval for a variance for outside storage in 1984 to exceed ten percent of the floor area of the building in which they are currently located. Roman Roos, representative for proponent, presented the preliminary plat indicating Phase I, II and III. He stated the elevations of this site permitted outside storage with adequate screening. He pointed out the planned screening in all phases of the project, whereby the landscaping would screen the parking lot without hiding the facility. A zero lot line setback on the rear property line has been applied for through the Board of Appeals. Parking for the two story building was based on 1 space per 2000 sq.ft. for warehouse and 6 spaces per 1000 sq.ft. for retail. He stated that all trucks would be parked on the back side of Phase I. If Phase II and III did not go forward as planned, they would finish the end of the building and add a berm along the north property line for screening. Roos indicated to the Commission that approval of all phases at this time was essential to the primary lender who has requested the City's assurance the project would continue whereby Phase II and Phase III would be developed. Uram pointed out three areas of concern on the project. The outside storage site plan was 12 ' lower than Plaza Drive and would need a variance. The zero lot line setback question would be addressed by the Board of Appeals. Mr. Way would move into Phase I immediately. They have agreed to a bond for the amount of the berming if Phase II does not occur. They would construct a berm until Phase II and III are completed. As was indicated in the Staff Report 75% brick face was recommended and required by City Code and at present there was 72% on this project. Uram reported that Staff Recommendations prior to Council review are: 1) revise the landscape plan to reflect a combination of six and eight-foot evergreen trees along the south property line in order to screen the storage areas and to reflect a combination of evergreen and overstory trees along Plaza Drive; 2) revise the architecture of the proposed building to reflect the continuation of the front side architecture partially along the rear of the building and to demonstrate that the mechanical equipment would be screened; 3) submit building material samples and colors for review which should be the same color family as Menards; 4) submit a Phase I grading plan which depicts a berm along the north side of Phase I screening the outdoor storage from Valley Eden Prairie Planning Commission -3- February 22, 1988 View Road; 5) submit a north building elevation for Phase I which depicts all face brick; 6) submit easements for the two accesses from Plaza Drive (these have been submitted) ; 7) submit site sections which depict the views from Valley View Road and Topview neighborhood for both the Phase I grading plan and final building construction; 8) submit an overall signage and lighting program with the size of letters and colors; 9) submit the usual utility plans for review by the City Engineer, and erosion control plans for review by the Water-shed District; 10) apply for and receive approval of the variance required for outside storage and zero lot line setback to the rear property line; 11) concurrent with building construction, a 5-foot concrete sidewalk shall be constructed along the west side of Plaza Drive; and 12) the submittal of a rooftop mechanical equipment screening plan. Ruebling stated that screening the outside storage along Valley View Road has always been a problem, and inquired how the proponent intended to fully screen this area. Proponent replied there was a 12 ' elevation difference and with the 6 and 8 foot evergreens, the storage area should be well screened. Hallett inquired about rooftop screening. Proponent stated there was plenty of room to screen mechanical rooftop • equipment. Ruebling inquired if berming would take place prior to Phase II and III thereby raising the elevation line. Proponent replied affirmatively. Ruebling countered that it was difficult to visualize how it would be totally hidden. Franzen stated that in his experience of screening projects, from some angle they are always visible. On this project, it might be visible due to the higher elevation of Valley View Road. However, he felt, berming and landscaping would block most of the view. Proponent inquired what the difference was between having 75% face brick and 73%. Staff replied that 75% was City Code, and once it is an ordinance it should be complied with because it is a minimum city requirement. Dodge stated that the face brick requirement was an ordinance and that she felt other commercial projects have conformed. Roos stated that proponent would add 3% brick to comply with City Ordinance. There were no comments from the audience. • Eden Prairie Planning commission -4- February 22, 1988 Hallett inquired of Staff if notices were mailed. Uram replied that 500 residents were contacted, and one phone call was received regarding the project. Bye asked for clarification of Phase I. Proponent replied that Phase I would contain A to Z rental party goods and medium to small equipment. The 3500 ft. retail area would be for two potential tenants. Phase II would be all inside storage. Hallett inquired about the variance of more than 10% outside storage. Uram replied it may be appropriate in this instance in view of the fact that it was granted previously in 1984 and the overall project would bring about an enhanced situation that what was presently on the existing site. Uram stated that the Commission could consider, because Phase I received a variance of the 10%, that no additional outside storage be requested in Phase II and III. Ruebling stated he was comfortable with the plan and endorsed the limitation to outside storage in Phase II and III. Franzen stated that a variance was being requested for A to Z Rental not the retailers in Phase III. The tenants in Phase III would have to come before the Board of Appeals for more than 10% outside storage. MOTION 1; Motion was made by Bye and seconded by Anderson to close public hearing. Motion carried 4-0-0. MOTION 2 : Motion was made by Bye and seconded by Anderson to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of A to Z Rental for Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Reg-Service on 1.67 acres, with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, based on plans dated February 2, 1988, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated February 19, 1988, amended to include: 1) plans for mechanical screening be submitted prior to Council review; 2) variance request be applied to Phase I and Phase II regarding outside storage; and 3) Phase III would be allowed its own 10% outside storage. Motion carried 4-0-0 MOTION 3 : Motion was made by Bye and seconded by Anderson to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of A to Z Rental for Preliminary Plat of 3 .59 acres into one lot and one Eden Prairie Planning Commission -5- February 22, 1988 outlot for construction of a 15,500 sq. ft. retail facility, based on plans dated February 2, 1988, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated February 19, 1988. Motion carried 4-0-0. B. WOODDALE CHURCH, by Wooddale Church. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 31 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review and Zoning District Amendment with the Public Zoning District on 31 acres with variance for structure height to 200 feet, and Environmental Assessment Worksheet Review for the construction of 200, 000 square feet of church and educational uses. Location: Southwest corner of Shady Oak Road and Bryant Lake Drive. Franzen introduced the project and the proponents representa- tive John Uban who in turn introduced Reverend White who gave the history and mission of Wooddale Church. Uban presented the proposed project as a regional church site and felt they were meeting the goals of the City with regard to meeting the peoples needs not only on the commercial side but the spiritual side as well. He indicated that the Golden Ridge subdivision has been in the area for a long time and the church has been sensitive to their concerns. This project would necessitate the removal of cottonwood trees to allow for the storage pond and access to the parking lot. The master plan to be approved would consist of 166,700 sq. ft. of floor area. 75 ' to the top of the sanctuary and 200 ' to the top of the spire. The size of the sanctuary would accommodate 2, 000 seats. Parking proposed would be 2,250 spaces requiring an EAW and an indirect source permit from the PCA. Uban spoke to the issue of a parking deck and shared parking with neighboring businesses. They want to live with proposed parking plan in Phase III and IV, and before Phase V assess the parking needs and address additional needs at that time. Bob Virto, architect for proponent, stated this was a building of special quality consisting of the best acoustics and a strong presence. He stated the building was a measurable artistic experience with regard to the steeple. They felt the spire was scaled in accordance with the FAA, the project has 75% face brick, and meets the requirements of the City as set forth and meets the recommendations of the Staff. Franzen stated the City was dealing with policy issues on the land use, the size of the church, and the height of the is church. The traffic study reported there are no traffic problems. A building of this height was usually found in a Eden Prairie Planning Commission -6- February 22, 1988 • major center area. The church desires to become a regional church in a low-profile area. The City was concerned that there be enough parking and that a great loss of trees does not occur in the creation of parking lots. The Staff declined making an outright approval or denial but presented pros and cons to be reviewed. These are listed in the Staff Report dated February 19, 1988. Ruebling inquired that the original request for an 1800 seat sanctuary was only being increased by 200 seats. This did not seem to be much of an increase in view of the square footage being requested in the project. Proponent responded that the square footage would cover classrooms for sunday school and adult education in order to expand the educational program. A small chapel and a gymnasium are also included. Bye inquired if those facilities were approved prior to this phase. Franzen replied affirmatively that they were approved in the last phase. Anderson commented that this was a low-intensity area and he was concerned with this becoming regional use. Ruebling stated he did not have a problem with the height or size as long as the surrounding neighborhood did not object. He would like as many trees saved as possible in the area. He felt a two deck parking ramp would supply parking needs at a later date. Dodge inquired about the 2250 parking spaces, if this was enough. Franzen commented that the code requirements for parking was based on the number of seats which would mean 667 spaces. The churches demand for parking is more than code would require. Proponent stated they would like to address the parking with each phase. Anderson felt the variance could be approved if there was no other area for a regional use, but the City does have other areas available for regional uses. Ruebling stated the whole character has changed in the area. The people who work in the seven story office building do not live in Eden Prairie and therefore it is a regional use. In that light, if people are coming to the church from other areas, it would be classified as well as regional. Franzen commented that the church was not in the middle of a residential area but rather on the edge. Hallett expressed support due to the traffic not being a problem on Sunday. He felt there possibly could be a Eden Prairie Planning Commission -7- February 22, 1988 • better area but the church was already there. He was concerned about the parking and removing trees. Franzen reported that replacement of trees would be based on a percentage of significant trees removed on the property. Hallett inquired how City can protect itself if Phase V was built and no parking added. Franzen responded that neighbors may complain and Staff would address the issue and attempt to resolve it with the church. Or, City Staff may observe parking problems and would then contact the church. Since the church is a PUD they would have to come back before the Planning Commission and indicate how they would be addressing the parking problem. Ruebling and Anderson inquired about the possibility of shared parking. Proponent responded they are presently share parking and want to use adjoining sites before having to build a parking deck. Hallett inquired how City could tie the church into a parking ramp in the future. Franzen responded that language in the development agreement could require decks to be constructed concurrrent with or prior to Phase V and that church must return to the Planning Commission with each subsequent phase. Five years down the road the church may know more accurately about their parking needs. Bye and Anderson felt the change in the zoning to regional would dictate change in the area. Ruebling had no problem in defining it as a regional. Dodge was concerned with the parking and inquired if there was not enough parking why not scale down the size of the building to be in accordance with parking available. She suggested the alternative of granting this proposed project with the stipulation of no further expansion in the future on this site. Franzen summarized options available such as parking decks, scale down the church activities, and shared parking. He added that Phase IV and Phase V would come back before the Planning Commission for consideration and parking projec- tions would be assessed. Dodge stated on site parking was preferred instead of decks. MOTION 1: Motion was made by Ruebling and seconded by Bye to close the public hearing. Motion carried 4-0-0. Eden Prairie Planning Commission -8- February 22, 1988 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Ruebling and seconded by Bye to return proposal to proponent with request that parking plan be restructured with an attempt to save additional trees on this site and revise the phasing plan to resolve the parking demand/provision issue so parking problems would not occur. Motion carried 4-0-0. MOTION 3: Motion was made by Ruebling and seconded by Bye to amend Motion 2 to state proponent shall return to Commission on March 28, 1988 and subject to review shall present proposed project to City Council on April 5, 1988. Motion carried 4-0-0. V. OLD BUSINESS None VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Review of DNR Protected Waters Permit No. 88-6186 and No. . 88-6208 for temporary drainage and control structure improvements to Little Grass Lake. Franzen introduced Ed Crozier of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, who would be addressing the land alteration to control rough fish population, encourage aquatic plant growth and to improve the habitat for waterfowl through water level management by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Crozier stated the work would consist of the installation of two control structures to allow control of water levels on Big and Little Rice Lake. One of the structures would replace a beaver dam on the outflow stream, and the other would be a ditch that would be dug to connect Little Rice Lake to a stream 120 ' to the east that flows into the Minnesota River. Hallett inquired ii public hunting was allowed on the land. Crozier responded negatively to adult hunters but stated that there would be training on the site for younger children. The Peterson property was however leased to hunters. Hallett inquired if public hunting was in the long-range plan. Crozier responded that possibly goose hunting when the fowl population increases in the future. Eden Prairie Planning Commission -9- February 22, 1988 MOTION: Motion was made by Ruebling and seconded by Bye to recommend to the City Council approval of the request for a temporary drainage and control structure improvements to Little Grass Lake as represented by DNR Protected Waters Permits No. 88- 6186 and No. 88-6208, based on plans dated February 15, 1988, subject to the recommendations of the Engineering Staff Report dated February 18, 1988, and the approval of the Watershed District and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Motion carried 4-0-0. VII. PLANNERS REPORT Franzen commented that six projects are scheduled for the next meeting. Normally three projects are scheduled for review, but at this time of year the City was faced with a rush of projects. In order to balance the load, Staff suggested the agenda could be increased to four standard items, and one housekeeping item. Hallett stated Commission could consider scheduling an additional Monday evening instead of hastily reviewing projects due to the late hour of the meeting. • Anderson commented he would be comfortable with an extra meeting in the month of March. Franzen informed Commission that Christine Dodge and Julianne Bye had been reappointed to the Commission by the City Council. VII. ADJOURNMENT Motion was made by Bye and seconded by Anderson to adjourn the meeting at 10:31 PM. Motion carried 4-0-0. •