Loading...
Planning Commission - 07/25/1988 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, July 25, 1988 • 7:30 p.m. COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman Julianne Bye, Richard Anderson, Christine Dodge, Doug Fell , Robert Hallett, Charles Ruebling, Ed Schuck 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. FAIRFIELD, by Tandem Properties. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Industrial to Medium Density Residential on 49.5 acres and from Industrial to Low -Density Residential on 24.4 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 148.2 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with variances for street frontage and lot size on 148.2 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5- on 92.7 acres and from rural to R1-13.5 on 53.6 acres, Preliminary Plat of 148.2 acres into 367 • single family lots, 28 outlots and road right-of-way, review of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for construction of a residential development. Location: West of County Road 4, southeast of the Minneapolis and St. Louis Railroad. A continued public hearing. (7:40) B. DATASERV by Opus Corporation. Request for PUD Amendment Review on 17.4 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 17.4 acres with a waiver for office use up to 100% within the I-2 Zoning District, Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 on 7.4 acres and Preliminary Plat of 17.4 acres into 1 lot for construction of additional parking spaces for the Datasery Headquarters. Location: South of Technology Drive, east of Prairie Center Drive. A continued public hearing. (7:45) C. MINNESOTA MINI-STORAGE, by Bruce Hubbard. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Office to Industrial on 7.7 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 for 2.35 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 7.7 acres into one lot for construction of 44,255 square feet of storage buildings. Location: Northwest of Flying Cloud Drive, southeast of U.S. Highway #169. A public hearing. (8:00) D. RED ROCK RANCH, by Robert H. Mason Homes, Inc. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential on 9.2 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on approximately 150 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on • approximately 52 acres with waivers and Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on approximately 52 acres with Shoreland variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Preliminary Platting of 150 acres into 62 single family lots, 5 outlots and road right-of-way. Location: West of Mitchell Road, east of Red Rock Lake. A continued public hearing. Agenda Eden Prairie Planning Commission • July 25, 1988 (8:45) E. NORSEMAN INDUSTRIAL PARK 6TH ADDITION, by Eberhardt/Hoyt Development. Request for Zoning District Amendment within the I-2 Zoning District on 4.5 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 on 4.3 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Preliminary Platting of 24.2 acres into one lot, 2 outlots and road right-of-way for construction of a 90,600 square foot building addition. Location: South of W. 74th Street, east of Golden Triangle Drive. A public hearing. (9:00) F. LAVONNE INDUSTRIAL PARK BUILDING IV, by LaVonne Industrial Park Part- nership IV. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Industrial on 4.53 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on approximately 33 acres with waivers, Zoning District Amendment within the I-2 Zoning District on 4.53 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 on 0.14 acres, and from Rural to R1-13.5 on 1 acre, Preliminary Plat of 7.66 acres into one. lot and one outlot for construction of 60,000 square feet of office/warehouse. Location: South of Edenvale Boulevard, east of the Chicago & Northwestern Railway. A public hearing. (9:30) G. PUBLIC STORAGE EDEN PRAIRIE, by Public Storage, Inc.. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Industrial on 3.1 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 on 3.1 • acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Preliminary Plat of 3.1 acres into one lot and road right-of-way for construction of 61,760 square feet of storage buildings. Location: County Road 18, south of Anderson Lakes Parkway. A public hearing. V. OLD BUSINESS VI. NEW BUSINESS 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, JULY 25, 1988 City Council Chambers 7:30 PM MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Julianne Bye, Christine Dodge, Charles Ruebling, Richard Anderson, and Douglas Fell • MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert Hallett, and Ed Schuck. STAFF PRESENT: Michael Franzen,Senior Planner; Don Uram,Assistant Planner;Alan Gray, City Engineer, Sue Anderson, Recording Secretary I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Motion was made by Ruebling and seconded by Fell to approve the agenda as printed. Motion carried 5-0-0. II. MEMBERS REPORTS None III. MINUTES None IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. FAIRFIELD. by Tandem Properties. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Industrial to Medium Density Residential on 49.5 acres and from Industrial to Low Density Residential on 24.4 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 148.2 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers for street frontage and lot size on 148.2 acres, Eden Prairie Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 25, 1988 Page 2 Zoning District Change from Rural to Ri-9.5 on 92.7 acres and from Rural to R1-13.5 on 53.6 acres, Preliminary Play of 148.2 acres into 367 single family lots,28 outlots and road right-of-way, review of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for construction of a residential development. Location: West of County Road 4, southeast of the Minneapolis and St. Louis Railroad. A continued public hearing. Franzen reported that Phases 2 through 6 of the project were continued from the June 27th, 1988 meeting pending receipt of the completed Southwest Area Study. He reported that the study would be completed in the next couple of weeks. MOTION: Motion was made by.-Ruebling and seconded by Fell to continue Fairfield, Phases 2-6 to the August 22, 1988, Planning Commission meeting, pending review and approval of the Southwest Area Study, directing Staff to republish and renotice the item in the paper and to the surrounding neighborhood. Motion carried 5-0-0 B. DATASERV by Opus Corporation. Request for PUD Amendment Review on 17.4 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 17.4 acres with a waiver for office use up to 100% within the 1-2 Zoning District,Zoning District Change from Rural to 1-2 on 7.4 acres and Preliminary Plat of 17.4 acres into 1 lot for construction of additional parking spaces for the Datasery Headquarters. Location: South of Technology Drive, east of Prairie Center Drive.A continued public hearing. Franzen reported that this item has been continued from two previous Planning Commission meetings pending receipt of the traffic study on the property. He stated the traffic study was • received last week and indicated 406 trips would be generated at the site. Staff plans to discuss with developer and owner a traffic management plan which would include ride share,and different groups leaving work at different times. Development of such management could reduce traffic by 80 trips per day. Ruebling inquired if a traffic management plan was developed with Datasery and then the building was used by another company,would they conformed to the traffic management restriction. Franzen replied that any new use of the building must meet the 1985 BRW Traffic allocation. If trips generated by a new use would exceed this,a traffic management plan may be necessary. MOTION: Motion was made by Ruebling and seconded by Fell to continue Datasery to the August 8, 1988, Planning Commission meeting,-pending Staff review of the traffic study on the proposed development. C.MINNESOTA MINI-STORAGE. by Bruce Hubbard. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Office to Industrial on 7.7 acres,Zoning District Change from Rural to 1-2 for 2.35 acres,and Preliminary Plat of 7.7 acres into one lot for construction of 44,255 square feet of storage buildings. Location: Northwest of Flying Cloud Drive, southeast of U.S.Highway#169. A public hearing. Uram reported that the item was continued form the July 11, 1988, Planning Commission meeting, pending notification of the.required.Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment for the property from office to industrial. He continued that the preliminary plat involved the combination of 5 existing lots • into 1 lot totaling 335,266 sq.ft. or 7.7 acres. The proposed addition would consist of 8 buildings which includes 7 mini-storage,and a new 2-unit manager's apartment/office. Access to the site Eden Prairie Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 25, 1988 Page 3 would be from Flying Cloud Drive by a 27 foot driveway located in the center portion of the project. One access was proposed for security reasons,and a total of nine outdoor parking stalls and a 2-stall garage will be provided to meet code requirements. Hubbard stated he was available for questions from the Commission. No public comments. MOTION 1: Motion was made by Dodge and seconded by Fell to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Dodge and seconded by Fell to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Bruce Hubbard for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Office to Industrial on 7.7 acres for the expansion of Minnesota Mini-Storage, based on plans dated June 24, 1988, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated July 8, 1988. Motion carried 5-0-0 MOTION 3: Motion was made by Dodge and seconded by Fell to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Bruce Hubbard for Zoning District Change from Rural to 1-2 on 2.35 acres for the expansion of Minnesota Mini-Storage, based on plans dated June 24, 1988, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated July 8, 1988. . Motion carried 5-0-0 MOTION 4: Motion was made by Dodge and seconded by Fell to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Bruce Hubbard for Preliminary Plat of 7.7 acres into one lot for the expansion of Minnesota Mini-Storage, based on plans dated June 24, 1988. Motion carried 5-0-0 D. RED ROCK RANCH. by Robert H. Mason Homes, Inc. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential on 9.2 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on approximately 150 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on approximately 52 acres with waivers and Zoning District Chagne from Rural to R1-13.5 on approximately 52 acres with Shoreland variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals,Preliminary Platting of 150 acres into 62 single family lots,5 outlots and road right-of-way. Location: West of Mitchell Road, east of Red Rock Lake. A continued public hearing. Franzen summarized the issues in the Staff Report relative to tree loss,density and roads. Franzen addressed the tree loss issue and indicated that developer estimated a 18% loss while the Staff estimates 44%. Staff recommended that developer bond and replace those trees lost within the house pads and due to road construction, which would be the 18%; and developer would bond for the additional trees expected to be lost due to the construction practices within the grading limits, which would be a potential 26%. He continued that after the homes are completed, it would be determined by the City Forester what trees would survive,then credit would be given and the bond . amount reduced; or if determined the trees would not survive,then they would be replaced. Regarding density,there should be a transition between the multiple areas and single family homes Eden Prairie Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 25, 1988 Page 4 in Phase#4&#5. The collector road could be phased and assessed over a 20 year period. The • intersection at existing Mitchell Road should be designed as recommended by the City Engineer. Randy Travalia, President of Robert H. Mason Homes, presented and reviewed the history of the land and reputation of the company. He stated they would be sensitive to the wooded areas and create new wooded areas with$2000 worth of shade trees placed on each lot that is not wooded. John Uban, representative of the proponent,-presented the-technical aspects of the project. The road design developed by proponent would eliminate free flow through the development. An aerial photograph was presented to show the surrounding area and the need for the extension of Mitchell Road. Proponent feels a T connection of the minor collector into existing Mitchell Road would handle the traffic in the development. Anderson and Fell questioned the proposed Mitchell Road extension. Alan Gray, City Engineer, responded that the developer proposes the collector road from existing Mitchell Road westerly to the proposed residential street that would connect between the collector and the northern loop road. They also proposed to construct a portion of the northern loop road together with Streets D and E as shown on the preliminary plat. He added that the minor collector should be the dominant road movement with existing Mitchell Road to "T" into from the south. The design was based on traffic numbers and trip destination. The minor collector could be built in phases with Phase#2 to be built in 1990. Assessments would be over 20 years. Ruebling inquired about temporary road. Uban indicated that a temporary road was necessary until access through the Seivert property was possible. Proponent was confident that Seivert would eventually sell. • Travalia expounded on the road and indicated minimal grading would occur which creates natural lot buffers and elevations allowing walkout lots. Anderson inquired of Staff's position on the collector road. Alan Gray, City Engineer,stated he was concerned with the safety, impact of the speed of traffic,and the amount of traffic in the area. He recommended a 32 ft.width road. He also was concerned about future development to the southwest and the traffic it would generate which would also use this collector road. He added that the road is an overall City benefit not just for this project. He stated that even if the intersection was built the way the developer wanted it would not decrease traffic in the Red Rock project. Bye indicated that Commission needed to balance the needs for all of Eden Prairie, and the road should be built as recommended by Staff. No.public comments were received. Anderson inquired how Staff and Proponent could be so widely separated on tree loss from 18%to 44%. Franzen stated that tree loss is determined by loss due to roads and house pads that are physically removed and trees that may die later due to construction damage within the drip lines of the trees. Staff looked at a 110 foot grading limit from the right of way as where trees would be lost. This limit is based on past experience,with large houses on large lots,reviewing what was built versus what was proposed. The developer is proposing smaller grading limits than what past experience has shown grading limits are for large custom homes. Anderson stated that if the Commission passed this with a 44%tree loss a precedent would be set. He also inquired what the time limit would be for the inspection of the trees. Franzen responded that • City Forester would visit the site one year after completion of the home and determine what trees would survive and/or die. Eden Prairie Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 25, 1988 Page 5 . Dodge indicated she was not in favor of tree replacement at a 44%tree loss. Franzen introduced discussion on the density issue for the area in Phases 4 and 5 to 2.5-3.5 units per acre. He continued that this reduction would be an'appropriate transition to the adjoining single family land use. Travalia stated that multiple-family homes were an anticipated land use not a proposed project. Bye then inquired why Commission was discussing the density issue. Franzen explained that developer was asking for zoning and platting for Phase#1 and concept approval for 250 units on 150 acres. Since this is the-request as published,the entire concept was reviewed in the Staff Report. Therefore if PUD approval is granted,the concept plan would change from 525 units(mostly multiple)to 250 units(mostly single family). If the PUD is amended in this manner,the guide plan should also be changed to low density residential south of the collector road. Uban stated that they would be lowering the density in the area versus the approved PUD density level of 4-1/2 units per acre. Franzen replied that present PUD density overall is lower but adjacent to the single family areas it is higher. If the density immediately adjacent to single family is 2-3.5 units per acre with up to 6 units per cre within the proposed multiple for Phase#4,that would be acceptable to Staff. For Phase#5 it should be 2-3.5 units per cre. Ruebling stated he did not want to the City locked into a density that would be higher than what was recommended by Staff at 1 to 3-1/2 units per acre. Ruebling was comfortable with Staff Report,street E as a through street,the private road,and Staff configuration for road intersection at Mitchell and phasing of collector road to County Road 1. If 44% tree loss can be resolved, project would be recommended. MOTION 1: Motion was made by Dodge and seconded by Anderson to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Dodge and seconded by Anderson to recommend to the City Council denial of the request of Robert H. Mason Homes, Inc.,for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential on 9.2 acres for Red Rock Ranch,due to the 44%tree loss. Motion carried 5-0-0 Bye concluded that if the tree loss can be handled in a better manner, the project would be supported according to Staff recommendations for collector road design, road phasing, street E as a through street and use of a private road. E. NORSEMAN INDUSTRIAL PARK 6TH ADDITION, by Eberhardt/Hoyt Development. Request for Zoning District Amendment within the 1-2 Zoning District on 4.5 acres;Zoning District Change from Rural to 1-2 on 4.3 acres,with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals; and Preliminary Plat of 13.56 acres into one lot,two outlots,and road right-of-way for construction of a 90,600 sq.ft. building addition. Location: South of W. 74th Street, east of • Golden Triangle Drive. A public hearing. Eden Prairie Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 25, 1988 Page 6 Uram reported that this project was straightforward with the issues for variances requested to the • Board of Appeals. Proponent was requesting a B.A.R.of 38.7%versus 30%,and a variance for a loading area located adjacent to street frontage. A screening plan for the loading dock area has been provided and was acceptable to Staff. He added that with completion of this project, Golden Triangle Drive will be completed thus providing access to the north. Russ Saulon, architect for proponent,stated that the project was an expansion of the present .Bachman.warehouse space.- He felt the variance would not have been necessary if Golden Triangle Drive had not taken up so much of the land and limited the building space. Herleiv Helle, 6138 Arctic Way, Edina, stated as a property owner of 15 acres adjoining this property, he,objected to the height,size and mass of the building, He felt it would look like a slab wall and requested windows be a part of the overall outside architecture. He objected to granting of variance for 38% B.A.R.when 30%was normal and required by other developers. His main concern was the loading dock. He felt the impact from his property along Golden Triangle Drive,which was 8' higher,would visually be damaged with a view of the loading dock. He felt it should be placed somewhere else out of view where it did not require a variance. Brad Hoyt, 45 Clay Cliffs, Tonka Bay, Developer, stated that there were many industrial buildings in Eden Prairie with variances in place for over 33% B.A.R.. Also that the 30% B.A.R.was not etched in granite, it was a guideline. He felt the occupant of this property would maintain the property better than the average occupant allowing Mr. Helle an excellent view from his property. The occupant would not leave empty trailers standing or pallets as viewed at other docks. He commented that the people in the area have seen a sea of loading docks for years. He stated that windows are not feasible in a warehouse building due to security problems. Daniel Enblom,-10610 Valley View, stated he has lived here since 1941 and was concerned with • the section in Outlot Band the plans for that area. Uram replied that the plat was revised and that area was not being developed. Uram added that the stockpile of dirt on the land would be removed with this project. Ruebling stated he was comfortable with the screening for the loading dock. Fell stated that when a 30% B.A.R. was exceeded, it should be discussed by the Commission. Uram stated that Staff supported the 38% B.A.R.due to land available,right of way for Golden Triangle Drive,the requirement by Bachman,and that the variance did not create other on site or off site negative impacts. All other code requirements were met. MOTION 1: Motion was made by Dodge and seconded by Anderson to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Dodge and seconded by Anderson to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Eberhardt and Hoyt Development for Zoning District Amendment within the 1-2 District on 4.5 acres and Zoning District change from Rural to 1-2 on 4.3 acres,with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals for a 90,606 sq.ft. addition to the 59,364 sq.ft. Bachman's building within Norseman's Industrial Park 6th Addition, based on plans dated July 15, 1988. . Motion carried 5-0-0 Eden Prairie Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 25, 1988 Page 7 MOTION 3: • Motion was made by Dodge and seconded by Anderson to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Eberhardt and Hoyt Development for Preliminary Plat of 13.56 acres to be known as Norseman's Industrial Park 6th Addition for one lot,two outlots,and road right-of-way, for a 90,606 sq.ft. addition to the Bachman's building, based on plans dated July 15, 1988, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated July 22, 1988. Motion carried 5-0-0 F. LAVONNE INDUSTRIAL PARK BUILDING IV. by LaVonne Industrial Park Partnership IV. Request for.Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Industrial on 4.53 acres; Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on approximately 33 acres; Planned Unit Development District Review on approximately 33 acres,with waivers,Zoning District Amendment within the 1-2 Zoning District on 4.53 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to 1-2 on 0.14 acre and from Rural to R1-13.5 on 1.0 acre; and Preliminary Plat of 7.66 acres into one lot and one outlot for construction of a 60,000 sq.ft. office/warehouse. Location: South of Edenvale Boulevard. Franzen introduced the project and Jim Noreen, architect for proponent. He stated that the Comprehensive Guide Plan reflected a low density residential land use for the property, but because of the zoning of 1-2,the PUD Concept approval for this industrial use,the closeness to Edenvale Boulevard and the railroad tracks, and the transition to the single family developments,the property best lent itself to an Industrial land use. The proponent presented the project as a 60,000 square feet of industrial land use in two buildings on 6.7 acres A total of 170 parking spaces are required for the structure and plan indicates that • number. They are requesting a waiver from the 50 foot front yard setback to parking to 25 foot as a trade-off for a 250 foot and 75 foot green belt being provided on the south and east sides of the lot and would be placed into a scenic easement. An additional waiver for a zero lot line setback to parking for a portion of the west and south parking area was requested. They felt the waivers had merit due to the amount of preservation area occupying the site and the large setbacks from the residential land uses to the south and east. Proponent continued that building color would blend with the wooded setting. They have met with residents in the area and have worked with City and residents on a landscape plan which was presented. Proponent stated that in the Fall when the actual placement of the trees occurred, residents would be consulted for their input. Residents have asked the developer to reduce the number of parking stalls by 10%.and.incorporate more green,by way of islands with trees. They also requested that a fence be constructed around the parking lot so as not to be visible during the winter when the trees are bare. Proponent proposed Outlot A with the development of two single family lots with a cul-de- sac at the end of Canterbury Lane. James Gnitecki, 14250 Stratford Road, was concerned with the 80-90 foot trees that would be sacrificed as well as the impact on the wildlife. With the elevation of his home, he would be looking out of his living room window onto the rooftop of the building. He felt that a stark parking lot of 170 spaces would be like looking down at a shopping center parking lot. He requested reducing it 14 spaces and breaking it up with trees. He requested that a permanent easement be incorporated with this project,and felt a culvert would have an adverse effect on the pond. He requested that Staff address the pond specifically and make the 250 foot setback a permanent easement. • Proponent felt the berm with 17 trees would buffer the building from the southside. Eden Prairie Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 25, 1988 Page 8 • Phil Mailer, 14202 Strafford Road, felt this would change the character of the neighborhood. Richard H. Mavison, 6613 Canterbury Lane, submitted the petition signed by 14 residents. The main concern was the closing of Canterbury Lane. The site designated for two family residents would be better utilized as wildlife area. His#1 concern was the closing of Canterbury Lane and#2 wanted City's assurance that no toxic elements would be involved or brought into the building. Roger Sandvick, 14280 Stratford Road, stated the project was unique and thanked developer for presenting it to the neighbors and listening to their concerns. His first concern was the parking and that it be reduced by 14 stalls; second concern was the west buffer of the building from the residential area;and..third.concern.was fencing for visual in winter as well as security. Fell inquired if parking was reduced would there be a potential for spillover into the neighborhood streets. Franzen replied that parking was based on 1/3 warehouse, 1/3 manufacturing and 1/3 office. This is a code interpretation since it is a spec industrial building and the percentages of uses are not known. This parking requirement for no spaces is a guideline in this case. Based on experience some buildings do not need this amount of parking. This guideline has some margin for error and an 8% reduction in parking should not cause parking problems on adjoining streets. The City could also limit amount of office to coincide with parking available. Fell acknowledged that Commission would like to see more developers and residents work together as done in this proposal. They were an example to the community. Sandvick stated that residents would support variance for developer in regard to parking and front and back setbacks. • Bye inquired about single family home and the utilities available. Alan Gray responded that the proposed elevation would be to low for sanitary sewer but the home could have its own pumping system,or utilities could be available through the industrial site. Ruebling requested that before the City Council meets,Staff should look at the possibility of a cul- de-sac or private drive for Canterbury Lane,and the effect on tree loss. Ruebling inquired of Staff if this proposal would have to go to Board of Appeals for parking stall issue. Franzen replied that Commission could recommend the variance as part of the Planned Unit Development District Review. MOTION 1: Motion was made by Dodge and seconded by Fell to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was.made by.Dodge and seconded by Fell to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of LaVonne Industrial Park Partnership IV for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Industrial on 4.53 acres for LaVonne Industrial Park Building IV, based on revised plans dated July 1, 1988,subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated July 22, 1988, and 1) one residential lot, 2)permanent easement of 250'to back of property and 75'on east side of property, 3) residential buffer, 4) drainage easements, 5)Staff to investigate a cul-de-sac or private drive for Canterbury Lane,and 6) PUD variance to reduce parking by 14 spaces. • Motion carried 5-0-0 Eden Prairie Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 25, 1988 Page 9 MOTION 3: Motion was made by Dodge and seconded by Fell to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of LaVonne Industrial Park IV for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment to the overall LaVonne Industrial Park PUD of approximately 33 acres for the LaVonne Industrial Park Building IV, based on revised plans dated July 1, 1988, subject to recommendations of the Staff Report dated July 22, 1988, and 1) one residential lot, 2)permanent easement of 250'to back of property.and 75'on.eastside of property, 3) residential buffer,-4) drainage easements,5) Staff to investigate a cul-de-sac or private drive for Canterbury Lane,and 6) PUD variance to reduce parking by 14 spaces. Motion carried 5-0-0 MOTION 4: Motion was made by Dodge and seconded by Fell to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of LaVonne Industrial Park Partnership IV for Planned Unit Development District Review on approximately 7.66 acres,with waivers,Zoning District Amendment within the 1-2 Zoning District on 4.53 acres,Zoning District Change from Rural to 1-2 on 0.41 acre, and Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 1.0 acre,for LaVonne Industrial Park Building IV, based on revised plans dated July 1, 1988, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated July 22, 1988, and 1) one residential lot, 2)permanent easement of 250'to back of property and 75' on east side of property, 3) residential buffer,4) drainage easements,5) Staff to investigate a cul-de-sac or private drive for Canterbury Lane,and 6) PUD variance to reduce parking by 14 spaces. Motion carried 5-0-0 MOTION 5: M Motion was made by Dodge and seconded by Fell to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of LaVonne Industrial Park Partnership IV for Preliminary Plat of 7.66 acres into one lot and one outlot for LaVonne Industrial Park Building IV based on revised plans dated July 1, 1988, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated July 22, 1988, and surrounding neighbors suggestions as previously stated. Motion carried 5-0-0 G. PUBLIC STORAGE EDEN PRAIRIE, by Public Storage, Inc. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Industrial on 7.7 acres; Zoning District Change from Rural to 1-2 on 2.35 acres; Preliminary Plat of 7.7 acres into one lot for construction of 44,255 sq.ft. of storage buildings. Location: County Road 18, south of Anderson Lakes Parkway. A public hearing. Franzen reported that the proposal being presented was for an industrial facility with a guide plan change for residential area. Staff suggested to developer alternative industrial sites,and development on site at one-half the intensity allowed per Code in the 1-2 Zoning District. Franzen stated.that a development framework outlining conditions under which use, other than Low Density Residential,could work for all vacant land along County Road#18. By having a framework, development intensity would be less and a large buffer area created between adjacent single family homes. Allan Westphal, District Manager of Public Storage, spoke of the company history, ideals and track record. Out of 825 projects throughout the United States and Canada, only one was lost due to highway expansion. Their request to build in a residential area was due to 80-90% of their business being from the homeowner with automobiles and boats. He spoke of the security Eden Prairie Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 25, 1988 Page 10 monitored TVs,fencing and resident manager. The market research led them to Eden Prairie and • they would develop to aesthetically blend into the neighborhood. Ron Erickson,archtiect for proponent, stated the site has been for sale for some time. The public storage would create 40 trips per day versus single family areas of this size creating 90 trips per day. The proposal does not environmentally impact the neighborhood. Anderson inquired how the site plan development fits into this zoning,when actuality it was an industrial use. Erickson replied that fundamental issues of site planning should be discussed further. They felt their plan was a non-intensive use of the land, colors of the building would blend into the neighborhood, and they were very flexible about their signage. Erickson commented that the land surrounding the site was low density because of its adjacency to County Road 18. The project would be heavily landscaped and a nice solution to land use. Franzen stated the landscaping and fencing proposed does not screen views from the residential area. The present homes would look down on the top of the buildings and additional overall green area was needed in the project. The site plan was too intense for the neighborhood as building would be very large in comparison with the single family homes. Anderson requested that the letter from residents Nancy and David Bremer. 9671 Clark Circle, be incorporated into the minutes. The strongly opposed changing the guide plan from residential to industrial as it was bordered by residential homes on three sides. The letter spoke of the high standards set for Eden Prairie residential areas and hoped that this would not give way to pressures as a result of the current growth. • David Oliver, 9661 Clark Circle, spoke of four lots adjoining not being used in this site plan. If they were left vacant they too would eventually be rezoned industrial. He commented that the four lots could be incorporated into the project and a more appealing project could develop if it was spread out and not so dense. Jane Laskowkski, 9445 Garrison Way, stated that two meetings were held at her home and it was never brought up about the lighting. As she surmised, in the winter time with operational hours until 9 PM, her backyard would be lit up like a Xmas tree every evening. She stated that when she moved there,she was told there was no sewer or water on the site and it would stay as was. She was against piece mealing the development and was in favor of the original guide plan. Fell inquired to developer why was this site selected. Westphal answered that their primary tenant was the homeowner, and they felt they were not an intense use for the land. He stated they were flexible to the residents suggestions of a U-shaped configuration and increased landscaping. He continued that most homeowners do not want to go to an industrial park for storage space,they want to have access to the facility. Fell inquired about the lighting. Don Jensen, owner, responded that mercury vapor overhead with direction on the site only would be used. Terry Osland, 9545 Garrison Way, commented he would be looked at 10 roof tops. He asked about the wetland,would they be bringing in fill. Would there drainage system be assessed to their property as well. He concluded that when he purchased the land, he was told only residential homes would be built on the property. • Peter Beck, attorney for the proponent, stated the Commission should address the issue of land use first and site planning details later. Franzen concurred and indicated to the Commission that if Eden Prairie Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 25, 1988 Page 11 industrial was not an appropriate land use,the appropriate action would be denial. If it is acceptable • then the plans should be revised to meet the development framework. Dodge felt the City has a commitment to these homeowners. Anderson stated the reason for a guide plan change would be for a better use of the land than low density residential. Westphal stated that the City does not provide any services to this site. To build 7-1/2 single family lots there would be a very expensive proposition for the City. Alan Gray, City Engineer,stated a feasibility study would have.to be done to determine the utilities, water and fire protection situation. Fell felt the public storage was not an appropriate use of the site. Bye indicated that the use was not appropriate and no transition has been provided. Ruebling agreed that this project was not the best use of the property in terms of intensity. MOTION 1: Motion was made by Dodge and seconded by Anderson to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Dodge and seconded by Anderson to recommend to the City Council denial • of the request of Public Storage, Inc.,for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Industrial for construction of a storage facility. Motion carried 5-0-0 V. OLD BUSINESS None VI. NEW BUSINESS None VII. PLANNER'S REPORT Franzen reported that one item was scheduled for August 8, 1988, Planning Commission meeting. Vill. ADJOURNMENT MOTION Motion was made by Dodge and seconded by Ruebling to adjourn the meeting at 12:15 AM.