Planning Commission - 10/13/1981 AGENDA
Eden Prairie Planning Commission
Tuesday, October 13, 1981
7:30 PM, City Hall
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman William Bearman, Liz
Retterath, Hakon Torjesen, Grant
Sutliff, Virginia Gartner, Robert
Hallett, Dennis Marhula
STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
Pledge of Allegiance - Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
II. APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER 28, 1981 MINUTES
III. MEMBERS REPORTS
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. CITY WEST, by Richard Anderson Inc. Request to amend the
Comprehensive Guide Plan on approximately 40 acres designated
Medium Density Residential to Office, Regional Commercial ;
approval of an 87 acre PUD Concept of Office, Regional Com-
mercial , and Multiple Residential Uses, and approval of an
Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Located east of new
Shady Oak Road (Co. Rd. 61) , and south of Crosstown 62. A-
public hearing.
B. WOODDALE BAPTIST CHURCH, by Wooddale Baptist Church. Request
for amendment to the City Guide Plan from Residential to Public;
Planned Unit Development Concept approval for church uses, re-
zoning from Rural to Public, and preliminary plat approval .
Variances requested are: 60 foot high sanctuary peak, 75 foot
high landmark, a non-hard-surface - parking area for the first
phase, on a total of 31 acres. Located east of Golden Ridge,
south of Shady Oak Road, and west of US 169/212. A public
hearing.
C. STANDARD OIL STATION, by Standard Oil Co. Request to rezone
;i acres from Planned Study to Highway Commercial for construc-
tion of a gas station and attached car wash. Located in the
southeast corner of Co. Rd. 4 and TH 5. A public meeting.
V. OLD BUSINESS
VI. NEW BUSINESS
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
t
MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
approved
Tuesday, October 13, 1981 7:30 PM; City Hall
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman William Bearman, Liz Retterath,
Hakon Torjesen, Grant Sutliff, Virginia
Gartner, Robert Hallett, Dennis Marhula
STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
Carrie Tietz, Substitute Recording Secretary
Pledge of Allegiance - Roll Call
I . APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION: Gartner moved to approve the Agenda as published. Hallett seconded
the motion and it carried unanimously.
CI . APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER 28, 1981 MINUTES
MOTION: Retterath moved to approve the Minutes as published. Sutliff
seconded the motion and it carried 5-0-2, Gartner and Bearman abstaining.
III . MEMBERS REPORTS
Bearman announced a Land Use Planning Workshop on October 23, 1981 or
November 5, 1981 . Enger recommends this workshop and the City will pay
the registration fee of $17.00 or $27.00 (for those wanting real estate
credit) .
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. CITY WEST
Bearman announced the City West proposal by Richard Anderson, Inc. , is,
at this time, a request to amend the Comprehensive Guide Plan on
approximately 40 acres designated Medium Density Residential to Office,
Regional Commercial ; approval of an 87 acre PUD Concept of Office,
Regional Commercial , and Multiple Residential Uses, and approval of an
Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Located east of new Shady Oak
Road ( Co. Rd. 61 ) , and south of Crosstown 62. This is a public hearing.
Enger mentioned that this item was published in the Eden Prairie paper
recently as a public hearing and request for rezoning, but since that
publication the proponent withdrew the request for rezoning and is
seeking the above request.
Enger introduced those present on behalf of the proponent as follows:
Peter Jarvis (BRW Architects) , Dave Sellegren (Larkin, Hoffman Attorneys),
Richard W. Anderson (President, ADI ) , Arijs Pakains (BRW) , and
Craig Anderson (Vice President, ADI ) .
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -2- October 13, 1981
• Peter Jarvis proceeded with the presentation of the revised proposal .
The developer wishes to respond to the changes made through comments
and concerns coming forward at the last Planning Commission meeting
(from Staff, members of Commission, neighbors) , and recent City Council
meetings and public meetings.
Jarvis proceeded to explain the changed amendment to the Comprehensive
Guide Plan at the land use level . The changes include reduction of
Regional Commercial category (Parcel 3) and the switch to Office/
Regional Commercial (Parcel 5) is in response to the City's concern
of too much Regional Commercial on the site in terms of being competitive
with the Major Center Area (M.C.A. ) . Jarvis explained that the
regional commercial planned on this site is for the purpose of supplying
supportive services to the area ( including this development, Opus II ,
Shady Oak Industrial Park, Flying Cloud Drive, etc. ) east and south,
and will include restaurants, travel agencies, hotels, etc. , and not
to complete with M.C.A. services (shopping, gas stations, groceries, etc. ) .
It is hoped that the regional commercial services will provide a
service function to the daytime population and would minimize trips to
and from the site during the day.
Jarvis explained the change to High Density Residential/Office category
(Parcels 4, 7 and 8), and said this is in response to the Planning
Commission's concern that there is a need for residential in this
area. The mixed use designation (RH/0) will allow the flexibility of
mixed use based on how ADI would perceive the marketing of that property.
The high density residential is seen as condominium, multiple story (6) ,
terraced housing with east/west orientation.
In terms of the Development Concept, Jarvis cited net acreages for the
different categories as follows:
High Density Residential/Office 9 acres
Office 47.5 acres
Regional Commercial 12.5 acres
Major Open Space 10.6 acres
Street, right-of-way 7 acres
Jarvis addressed the revised site plan and reviewed the internal pathway
system proposed and the connection to the City's trail system. This
designation came about as a result of the Parks, Recreation and Natural
Resources Commission concern that the developer should state his intent
in this area. The site plan shows an interior path system (approximately
1 mile) to interconnect with the eventual Shady Oak trail system.
Jarvis discussed a change in the surface parking situation in the way
of a ramp system which will be constructed coincident with each phase
of development. He also outlined additional ramps that would be built
if, in the City's judgement, the developer needs to conform with code
and allow more parking spaces. The developer would like to propose
3.6 spaces per 1 ,000 square feet of floor space (City code is 5/1 ,000) .
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -3- October 13, 1981
The developer is proposing to put approximately 25% of the parking
underground or in ramps. That figure could change if the City requires
proof of parking increases.
Jarvis stated that the proposed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is .37 or roughly
over 1/3 of the property. Hard surface area is 12.2 acres of 26 total
site acres. This is 48% of the total area.
In summary, Jarvis asked the Commission to take into account several
changes that have taken place in the past 10 years adjacent to or near
this site:
1 ) Opus II has occurred adjacent to the site which is approaching
4,000,000 square feet with a capacity of approximately 6,000,000
square feet. This has attracted a tremendous number of companies
that were previously scattered all over the Minneapolis area and
has focused a lot of offices back to the southwest quadrant.
Many companies have moved their regional and corporate headquarters
to Opus II . This has created a market opportunity that this plan is
attempting to respond to, and this proposal is seen as an extension
of and complimentary to the M.C.A.
2) The small electronics, computer oriented, software service firms
have been the dominant market segment that has come to ADI in
terms of locating in this area. Many of these companies seems to
be interested in this area because of the close proximity to their
other divisions located eith in Opus II , Shady Oak Industrial
Park, or the County Road 18 corridor.
3) The extension of the 62 Crosstown is a closer reality today than
in the past in terms of funding.
Enger referred to Sta+f Report of October 8, 1981 . Enger elaborated
on the major land use questions Staff feels are pertinent to this
request.
1 ) Does this project compete with the M.C.A. or does this land use fill
a related need to the industrial parks that had not been anticipated?
Staff feels the developer should substantiate the clain that this
area fills a need which is unique to this site and cannot be
duplicated elsewhere in the City. Staff is supportive of the
regional commercial being proposed for this area.
2) Does the land and public utilities framework have the capacity to
handle the change in land use?
Staff would like to have a more detailed understanding with the
developer as to how much of the Shady Oak Road upgrading he would
. be responsible for. Staff suggests Council order a feasibility
study prior to rezoning requests so costs can be apportioned and
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -4- October 13, 1981
assumed. This could be done by an independent engineering firm
that the City would hire.
3) Should residential be included as shown on the Guide Plan?
Staff agrees that the center of the site offers the best place
for residential as it is buffered from the impacts of the
surrounding roads. Staff also feels the limited residential
proposed might make more sense than the extent of residential
shown in the Guide Plan because there are no parks or neighborhood
services planned to accommodate an extensive residential population.
4) Should Regional Commercial be a use included in this land use plan?
Staff is in agreement with the proposal as the uses are supportive
to this office park.
Enger addressed the parking issue. He noted that the developer is
proposing 3.6 parking spaces per 1 ,000 sq. ft. of floor area. The
ordinance requires 5. Staff concurrs with parking ramps as a desirable
way to develop the site to reduce the amount of hard surface area, but
in order to keep a handle on the issue, when a zoning request comes in
it is only for Phase I and prior to Phase II the City would evaluate
the parking in place in Phase I and ascertain any problems. If there
• were problems, Phase II would proceed at a lower square footage of
office space so the total amount of parking would be 5 per 1 ,000 sq. ft.
Enger reviewed the 3 alternatives the Planning Commission may want to
consider. These alternatives are listed on page 5 of the October 8,
1981 Staff report. Staff is recommending alternative #2, which allows
the developer to get started under the Comprehensive Guide Plan, but
allows the City the comfort level of retaining residential within the
plan.
Torjesen asked how Staff considers the medium density residential as
shown on the Comprehensive Guide Plan the same as the proposed high
density residential of this proposal ? Enger said the Guide Plan shows
33 acres medium density residential and this proposal shows 24 acres
high density residential . He feels it balances out because instead of
having fewer units on more acreage you have more units on less acreage
which in Enger's opinion is the same thing.
Torjesen said Staff is suggesting a radical change in the density which
does not make the plan in conformity with the Guide Plan.
Bearman led the discussion away from the issue of Guide Plan changes
because the City has changed the Guide Plan many times since 1968.
Bearman said the Commission should look at projects as projects--and
ask the question, does the plan fit the site and proceed from there.
Enger said he understands Torjesen's point, and that there is a difference
between 36 acres of pure residential and 24 acres of residential and
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -5- October 13, 1981
•
12 acres office. Enger said he is in agreement with that philosophy.
Torjesen stated at this point that Enger should retract the statement
from the Staff Report which states the categories RMD and RHD/O are the
same. Enger reread the first alternative (p. 5) again and said he
would agree to change the last sentence to read: "In the Planner's
opinion, this would leave the plan in conformance with the Comprehensive
Guide Plan." Torjesen remained in disagreement.
Torjesen stated that so far no one has mentioned the residential
occurring on Shady Oak Road north of Crosstown. He made reference to
Fazendin Homes development which is a very successful , medium density
residential area running from the Crosstown all the way down to Shady
Oak Lake. That area, coupled with residential in the Rembrandt property,
Golden Ridge and around Bryant Lake Park, seems to form a natural
corridor of medium density residential . There seems to be a demand for
it. Torjesen said he would like Staff to look in to why it is, on the
Minnetonka side there is sufficient demand for medium density residential
development, and on this side of the Crosstown we are wondering whether
or not there is sense in considering medium density residential .
Enger said he is not alligating that medium density residential won't
work here--he said it can. He said in looking at the land use plan,
how can you introduce residential into this property in a proper place
• in significant numbers? In Enger's opinion, high density residential
in the most desirable location on the site is one way to do that.
Torjesen said his favorite plan to date is in Enger's initial Staff
Report where medium density residential is along Shady Oak Road and
higher office uses along TH169.
Bearman commented that the City has made a major commitment to the M.C.A.
as far as tax increment financing, etc. In his opinion, this proposal
is a distraction as far as an amount of 33-1/3% additional office space.
Bearman continued that if the ring road network is built, it might
take 4 minutes instead of 7 minutes to get to the M.C.A. services from
Opus II , etc. , so travel time is not a big issue.
Enger commented that providing commercial to a major office park/
industrial area is analagous to providing community commercial to a
residential neighborhood.
Bearman commented that, in light of his concern about the impact of
such a development on surrounding areas, perhaps office doesn't belong
here at all even though the Comprehensive Guide Plan shows it. In other
words, let's not narrow our scope just because of what the Compre-
hensive Guide Plan shows.
Bearman asked if a hotel has been considered in Eden Prairie and where.
Enger said one was considered on the Condon-Naegele property, and
• another where the Y-View Motel was. Bearman questioned if one of
those plans were carried out, is there a need for 2 hotels so close.
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -6- October 13, 1981
•
Resident Phyllis Redpath, 9745 Mill Creek Road, had several comments:
1 ) All the changes in the Guide Plan over the last several years
that Bearman cited, were upgrading steps not downgrading as in the
case of this proposal ,
2) Disagreement with Enger when he said there is more money now for
the 62 Crosstown to be continued,
3) Feels this proposal is in definite conflict with the M.C.A. ,
4) She has never known planners and developers to put in sewer and
roads and then ask for zoning (especially with the kind of acreage
in this development),
5) She is aware of housing going in east of 62 toward Edina.
Resident Jan Gehrke, Golden Ridge Drive, commented that in all the hours
of presentations heard from the developer, she has yet to hear a good
reason why the Comprehensive Guide Plan should be changed.
Resident Perry Stillman, 6601 Golden Ridge Drive, commented that he is
interested in the idea of residential along Shady Oak Road and regional
. commercial along 169. He expressed concern that with this large an office
complex or hotel , etc. , it will be in direct competition with the
M.C.A. which is costing every resident in Eden Prairie money in support
of it. Perhaps small office space is warranted, but not of the grandeur
being proposed here.
Resident Warren Gehrke, 6622 Golden Ridge Drive expressed concern as to
what happens to the adjoining property, such as the parcel east of the
Honeywell site that is presently International Student Village. Also,
what will happen west of Shady Oak Road. What does this development
mean for those people, and the potential of what they can do with their
property.
Jarvis made several closing comments.
In terms of "competition" with the M.C.A.--the developer is not saying
that the sole purpose of this office development is to support Opus II/
Shady Oak Industrial Park. There are some supportive aspects in
terms of commercial services. The difference in commuting to the
commercial services from these office parks (Opus II , Shady Oak,
porposed City West) is not the time of 5 or 7 minutes, but of making
those kinds of trips 500± times per year and the effect on energy
consumption.
Jarvis asked the Commission to look at this positive aspect of
• "competition". If this Commission and the City Council were principally
interested in implementing the Major Center Plan, they should approve
this plan. The reason being, that in the eyes of most businesses
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -7- October 13, 1981
in the Metropolitan area, Eden Prairie is not the commercial place to
be. The prime reason for this is there has been no activity in Eden
Prairie except for the premature shopping center built 7-8 years ago
( in terms of market) . This development has a positive effect on the
M.C.A. because it raises people's awareness of Eden Prairie in terms
of a place to do business as well as a beautiful community to live
in. In these respects, Jarvis sees competition as healthy. He also
added that 2 hotels would be an advantage to the area in that there
would be more accommodations for meeting rooms, restaurants, etc.
Jarvis referred to the housing question. ADI has no intention of
building housing units. The property will go up for sale to residential
builders and it will be those builders who will initiate rezoning.
Jarvis commented on the mixed use category. Eden Prairie has used it
a number of times on the overall Guide Plan for the City.
Jarvis referred to the issue of Shady Oak Road frontage and the effects
of this development on adjacent neighborhoods. If one looks at the
present Guide Plan, note that only 350-400 feet of frontage are not
already up against an office category.
Hallett expressed positive feelings toward this development and feels
the proposal makes sense.
Marhula feels the competition effects on the M.C.A. are positive.
He further stated that the real issue here is a land use question.
Marhula has heard from real estate people and developers throughout
the Metro area that feel thereis a lot of good land in Eden Prairie
but one can't get there. If one can get there, you have to drive
through an industrial or commercial area and that detracts from some
very valuable land that we have.
Marhula asks for consideration as to what effects this use might have
on the desirability of the residential in the area. Also, the fact
of driving 2 mile or so through industrial/commercial to get to the
high density residential area should be evaluated. He especially
expressed concern for the easterly point of the triangle which is not
owned by ADI and what impact this development have on future land
use in that area.
Marhula sa.i-d- he would"support the project if'the office/commercial
area is being situated where it is because of good planning and not
just an effort to satisfy the Guide Plan.
Torjesen said he believes in competition as well . In terms of what
we want in Eden Prairie, Torjesen feels the closest answer is, the
Guide Plan. Eden Prairie does not want to restrict growth but it
• doesn't want to encourage growth per se. The City wants balanced
growth. Also, the City wants to be consistent. People who buy land
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -8- October 13, 1981
and look at the Guide Plan should have a fair sense that unless there
are overwhelming reasons, the City will follow the Plan.
Torjesen stated several problems he has with the City West proposal :
1 ) There is more density than the community thought it intended to
put there.
2) If there is such pressure for the types of land uses we are being
asked to consider, why is the medium density residential to the
north so successful and is even expanding?
3) We do want to maintain the integrity of our residential areas.
4) Torjesen would like to see Enger's original proposal of residential
along Shady Oak Road and regional commercial and office along the
freeway.
MOTION: Torjesen moved to recommend the City West proposal be referred
back to Staff to work with the developer to come up with a plan for
medium density residential along Shady Oak Road. Gartner seconded the
motion. The motion carried 4-3-0, Sutliff, Retterath, Gartner and
Torjesen voting aye; Bearman, Hallett and Marhula voting naye.
DISCUSSION: Enger asked what the date certain for continuation of this
public hearing would be. Jarvis said they would be prepared to be on
the Agenda October 26, 1981 .
B. WOODDALE BAPTIST CHURCH
Retterath assumed the chair at this time.
Enger stated that this meeting will serve as a presentational meeting
from the proponent, as significant changes were made to the building.
The request for amendment, etc. , will be made at the October 26, 1981
meeting.
Fred Hoisington of Brauer & Associates Ltd. , Inc. , introduced Pastor
Leith Anderson of Wooddale Baptist Church who gave the background of
the church and the conditions leading up to this proposal . He stated
that the church is looking to a December 18, 1981 , closing date.
Hoisington reviewed the site plan giving total parking plan in Phase I
as 470 spaces with an ultimate capacity of 1 ,100 spaces. Total seating
in the proposed sanctuary is 1200 in Phase 1 (50,000 sq. ft. ) and
1800 ultimate seating (100,000 sq. ft. ) .
Torjesen asked if something other than full parking lot development
. has been discussed due to the large parking situation. Hoisington
said ramp parking is a possibility but turf parking will not be possible
because of soil conditions.
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -9- October 13, 1981
•
Torjesen expressed concern in blacktopping the entire parking area which
won't get a lot of use. Enger commented that a portion of the parking
might be gravel at first, but the City ordinance does require hard
surface ultimately.
Enger commented that the Comprehensive Guide Plan does not show a
church on this site, but a church is consistent with the Guide Plan
in that it has commercial characteristics but is compatible with
residential use.
Retterath stated that Bearman said he is vehemently opposed to 31
acres being taken off the tax role through the proposed use.
MOTION: Gartner moved to recommend continuation of the Wooddale
Baptist Church proposal to October 26, 1981 . Hallett seconded the
motion and it carried unanimously.
C. STANDARD OIL STATION
Enger stated that this is a request to rezone acres from Planned
Study to Highway Commercial for construction of a gas station and attached
car wash. The site is located in the southeast corner of Co. Rd. 4
and TH 5. This is a public meeting.
Enger reviewed the long history of this proposal and stated the
Comprehensive Guide Plan shows this as industrial .
Staff recommends approval of the rezoning with the changes noted in
the Staff Report of October 9, 1981 .
R. A. Duggan, Jr. , from Standard Oil Company gave a short presentation.
After a lengthy discussion of the problems of ingress and egress to the
site, the question was raised whether the proposed land use is
appropriate at this location.
MOTION: Gartner recommended to the Council denial of the Standard Oil
rezoning request. The motion died for lack of a second.
MOTION: Marhula moved to recommend approval of the Standard Oil
rezoning request subject to the Staff recommendations. Also that Staff
investigate the development agreement of Stewart Sandwiches to connect to
Co. Rd. 4 and Fuller Drive. Hallett seconded, motion carried 5-1. Gartner
voted no.
V. OLD BUSINESS
Vl . NEW BUSINESS
• VII . PLANNER'S REPORT
The October 26, 1981 Planning Commission Meeting will include the City
West proposal , Wooddale Baptist Church, Preliminary Plat and rezoning
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -10- October 13, 1981
i
for Kentucky Fried Chicken, JESCO, Eden Glen for Office building and motel .
Enger informed the Commission that he will be out of town the week of
October 19 - 23, 1981 .
Vill . ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 11 :50 p.m. The motion was made by Torjesen
and seconded by Sutliff. The motion carried unanimously.
•
•