Planning Commission - 11/09/1981 AGENDA
Eden Prairie Planning Commission
Monday, November 9, 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
Sue Schulz, Planning Secretary
Pledge of Allegiance - Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
II. APPROVAL OF OCTOBER 26, 1981 MINUTES
III. MEMBERS REPORTS'
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. BRYANT LAKE CONDOMINIUMS, by Metram Properties Co. Request
for PUD Concept approval on 65 acres for residential attached
and detached units with possible variances and approval of an
Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Located east of 494 and
Beach Road and south of proposed Crosstown 62. A continued
public hearing.
B. SGL OFFICE/WAREHOUSE, by SGL Inc. Request to rezone from
Rural tDI-2 and preliminary plat approximately 8.3 acres for
construction of an office/warehouse building. A public hearing.
C. KINDER CARE LEARNING CENTER, by Kinder Care. Request for a
revised site plan amendment to locate a Kinder Care Learning
Center in an Office District. A public meeting.
V. OLD BUSINESS
VI. NEW BUSINESS
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
approved
Monday, November 9, 1981 7:30 PM, City Hall
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman William Bearman, Grant Sutliff,
Dennis Marhula, Hakon Torjesen, Robert
Hallett
MEMBERS ABSENT: Liz Retterath, Virginia Gartner
STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
Sue Schulz, Planning Secretary
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Sutliff moved to approve the agenda as submitted. Torjesen seconded, motion
carried 5-0.
II. APPROVAL OF OCTOBER 26, 1981 MINUTES
P. 3, 2nd para. change structural to architectural and finish sentence to
read: rather than determined by whether it is office or residential
and stated that he felt that townhouse offices would be better than
residential townhouses.
P. 3, 3rd para. should read: Torjesen stated he agreed with lower density
along Shady Oak Road but that the offices should extend to the
bottom of the site along Shady Oak Road.
P. 3, 14th para. add after 'under' FAR.
P. 4, Amendment, change high density residential to small office and
add after amendment a new amendment to read: Sutliff moved to
make the high density residential along Shady Oak Road be made
medium density residential retaining the high density piece in the
center of the site. Torjesen seconded, motion failed 2-5.
P. 6, para. after 'Vote on Original Motion With Amendment, eliminate next
Para which reads: Motion carried 7-0.
Change item D to be item C and vice-versa.
Marhula moved to approve the October 26, 1981 minutes with the above
changes and/or modifications. Torjesen seconded, motion carried 5-0.
III. MEMBERS REPORTS
• None
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. BRYANT LAKE CONDOMINIUMS, by Metram Properties Co. Request for
-PUD Concept approval on 65 acres for residential attached and
detached units with possible variances and approval of an En-
vironmental Assessment Worksheet. Located east of 494 and
Beach Road and south of proposed Crosstown 62. A continued
public hearing.
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -2- November 9, 1981
• The Planner stated that Henn. County's attorney has been in contact with the City
since the meeting and stated that negotiations have not yet begun regarding the
park land. He reviewed the staff report dated July 23, 1981 and suggested that
discussion take place regarding the density of the site plan, but that the plan
be continued. He introduced Mr. John Uban of Howard Dahlgren & Assoc. representing
Metram Properties Co.
Uban then introduced Mr. Jerry Brill , Metram's attorney.
Brill stated he has been in contact with the Park Reserve District but nothing has
been done to-date. He stated he was told that by the first week in December the
District will hire an appraiser to appraise the land.
Uban then stated that Vosco Bernardi of Metram was present from Metram.
Uban reviewed the location; 65 acres in size, on the north end of Bryant Lake,
bordered on ene side by I-494 and the proposed Crosstown 62 will cut across its
northern border. He stated that when Crosstown 62 comes through, an on-grade
system will be made and bring Beach Road around giving it access to Crosstown
62 which they feel is a major access point. He stated that there will be single
family lots directly off Beach Road. He stated that another point of access will
be through the single family in the southern portion of the site. Grading will
be confined to the knoll and they will save as many trees as possible. He stated
that Metram wants only concept approval at this point and further stated that this
property has been planned for in the past with higher density than shown; this
plan will be less than 3 units/acre.
Sutliff asked how far west proposed Crosstown will extend as proposed to freeway
status which has-,limited access. The Planner stated that they are studying many
different typeslof roadways from new Shady Oak to I-49.4 and stated that Crosstown
may not have freeway status. Sutliff then stated that if it would have freeway
status going further west, there would be no on-grade crossing; if it will not be
brought up to freeway status, access is basically up to a new bridge over 494 or
back up to Rowland Road.
Torjesen stated he felt that the question of access to this project is a hypothetical
one.
Sutliff then stated that if traffic is brought up to a new bridge, and if the County
does not purchase the land there will be an access problem.
Bearman stated that he felt that the Commission should make suggestions and have the
proponent return. He also stated that he felt that there are problems with access.
Marhula asked 'Uban -to elaborate on the development in Minnetonka. Uban stated that
the proponent was allowed to build a certain amount of development prior to con-
struction of the proposed Crosstown 62. He stated that they planned the development
specifically for two different accesses. He stated that they have a temporary access
following the curve of the property line leading to the intersection until Crosstown
62 is built. If it is not built, that will be the access point for them.
•
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -3- November 9, 1981
• Torjesen asked if Outlot A (as shown) belongs to Thelma Haynes. Uban replied yes
and stated that the proponent has another outlot that will adjoin that so that if in
the future Ms. Haynes decides to develop it, Metram's outlot will be compatible
with Ms. Haynes' .
Marhula asked if Thelma Haynes' outlot A was for sedimentation purposes. Uban
stated that Metram could leave their outlot for ponding purposes if necessary.
Torjesen asked if the right-of-way runs through Thelma Haynes' property. The
Planner replied yes that it does and it runs to the Metram piece.
Torjesen asked if the subdivisions around Bryant Lake have come close to 2 units/acre.
The Planner replied no.
Torjesen felt that 2 units/acre should be regarded as a maximum for this site. He
also felt that clustering would be good for this site.
Bearman stated he felt that clustering would work well and stated 2 condominiums
could be tucked in the hill overlooking Bryant Lake and that the density should be
kept low.
Torjesen asked if the proponent would like to return on the 23rd of November. Bernardi
replied that Metram would like to develop the land as soon as possible. Uban replied
that they would like to come back on the 23rd.
Hallett asked if Staff would be able to come back to the Commission with a recom-
mendation on Nov. 23. The Planner stated that that would depend on when the revised
plan was submittdd for review.
The Planner stated that there are 3 options to bring the land into ownership by the
City of Eden Prairie or Hennepin County; 1) density transfer - the City would only get
a portion of the cash park fee; the balanc-d of the property would then be given to
Hennepin County or kept by the City; 2) retaining the land in private ownership;
3) change the Comprehensive Guide Plan.
Marhula stated he felt that the site plan should be looked at and felt that
clustering would work on the site. Uban agreed that the site plan should be looked
at.
Torjesen agreed that a compatible site design is important but stated that it is
difficult to define that. He also stated that the proponent should stay under
2 units/acre.
Hallett asked if the reason people have not built more than 2 units/acre is because
there was no sewer and water in. Torjesen replied no.
Sutliff stated that if the concept Ts' appropriate with between 1 3 units/acre
the plan would be good.
Torjesen stated he felt that if the concept plan comes in with clustering and a
• Guide Plan amendment, the project will be more complicated.
Bearman asked if any residents had any questions or comments. None were raised.
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -4- November -9, 1981
The Planner stated that if the Commission chose tb continue the project, one month
would be enough time so Staff can have enough time to review the plan and renotify
the residents.
Uban stated that Bernardi will be out-of-town if continued one month and that they
could have a revised plan to Staff in time for the November 23, 1981 meeting.
Beaman stated that if the project was continued to the 23rd, the proponent must
submit a plan to Staff by November 16th.
MOTION
Marhula moved to continue Bryant Lake Condominiums to November 23, 1981. Torjesen
seconded, motion carried 5-0.
B. SGL OFFICE/WAREHOUSE, by SGL Inc. Request to rezone from
Rural to I-2 and preliminary plat approximately 8.3 acres
for construction of an office/warehouse building. A
public' hearing.
The Planner introduced Mr. Don Goetzman, president of SGL Inc. and Frank Reese,
their architect.
Reese reviewed the location of the project, location of proposed 212, the Jocation
for the catch basins for storm water run-off, and stated the building would be owned
• by one single owner. He also reviewed parking which would be located on the north-
west and east sides of the building with loading to occur on the south side of the
building. He reviewed the materials to be used, landscaping and stated that there
will be 111,000 sq. ft. FAR.
The Planner reviewed the staff report dated Nov. 6, 1981.
Marhula asked if. the W. 78th St. project is the City's project and if the right-of-
way for W. 78th St. will be acquired by the City. The Planner replied it is the
City's project and stated it will be identified if the ROW will be dedicated or
acquired. In this case, ROW is invisioned that it would be centered on the lot
line and that SGL was proposing that they would plat and give the ROW as part of the
road project.
Marhula asked if traffic on the south side of the building will be one-way traffic.
Reese replied yes.
Torjesen asked the current status of W. 78th St. and if this property has access.
The Planner stated that it does not have legal ROW access but stated that a road
feasibility study will be completed within a few weeks and stated there is an agreement
between SGL, CPT, and CPA that would assure access to the east side'of� the project.
Torjesen asked if it is appropriate for the Planning Commission to recommend approval
of the preliminary plat with the location for the road undecided. The Planner replied
yes it is appropriate.
Torjesen asked the owner of the building if they are comfortable with the fact that
no outside storage is permitted in this area. Gary Yenger, representing a joint
partnership between Sistic Corporation and Barthel Homes, stated he will not use
the buiTding but is connected with the construction of the building. He stated that
the owners are comfortable with no outside storage.
. approved
Planning Commission Minutes -5- November 9, 1981
• Sutliff stated he will abstain from voting on this project because of possible
business conflict.
Bearman asked if the proponent is consistent with the parking Ordinance. The
Planner replied that the Ordinance requires 3/1000 sq. ft. of building which
would be 333 and the proponent proposes 321. However, if the project was looked
at as a 3 tennant building; look at the building having a third office, a third
manufacturing, and a third warehouse in the building, it would be consistent but
felt that setbacks should be looked at.
Torjesen asked if the Commission should be insisting that the building be smaller.
with the 75' setback requirement. The Planner stated that when CPA, CPT, and MTS
were looked at, it was talked about to put as little development in the Corridor
as possible.
Marhula asked if the proponent has been in contact with Charlyn? Reese replied yes.
Marhula then asked if the proponent has discussed the question of moving the road
further north and taking away part of Char-Lynn's. property. Reese replied no.
John Otterly, 4704 Merry Lane, Edina, MN 55436, asked if the road was moved northerly,
what would it be adjacent to? The Planner replied that that has not been determined
at this time and stated that the feasibiltiy study would suggest ways to handle this.
Otterly asked if it is feasible to load Wallace Road more. The Planner replied that
the'feasibiltty-study is studying upgrading Mitchell Road to a .four lane road which
would bring traffic off Wallace Road to Mitchell Road to TH 5.
Bearman asked the proponent if they had any problems with I-5 zoning rather than I-2.
Reese stated it would be alright.
MOTION 1
Torjesen moved to close the public hearing. Marhula seconded, motion carried 4-0-1.
Sutliff abstained because of possible business conflict.
MOTION 2
Torjesen moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the zoning from Rural
to I-5 as per the plans dated 10/14/81 and the staff report of November 6, 1981
adding #8 That the approval be contingent on access for the property. Marhula
seconded, motion carried 4-0-1. Sutliff abstained.
Marhula felt that with the 75' setback required, the burden will be on the City to
acquire the additional 25' .
AMENDMENT TO MOTION 2
Torjesen moved to amend motion #2 stating that it is the Planning Commission's
recommendation to the City Council that the frontyard setback be from the pro-
posed right-6f-way as shown on the plan - not in acquisition .of additional property;
to allow for the contingency of the 212 Corridor and give the proponent guidance.
• Marhula stated that if additional right-of-way is not acquired, the only ways to
meet the requirements of the ordinance would be to narrow the building or reduce the
parking. He then stated that the proof of parking should be upheld.
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -6- November 9, 1981
Torjesen then withdrew his amendment to motion 2.
Marhula stated that he felt that there are 2 options; 1) change the site plan; and
2) negotiate with Char=Lynn 'to get the additional 25' to meet the 75' setback require-
ment.
The Planner stated that it is to the developer's advantage to acquire additional
parking or change the site plan for maximum flexibility.
Bearman stated that the frontyard setback of 75' is necessary.
MOTION 3
Torjesen moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the SGL plat dated
10/14/81 as per the staff report of November 6, 1981 and the addition in motion 2.
Marhula seconded, motion carried 4-0-1: Sutliff abstained.
C. KINDER-CARE LEARNING CENTER, by Kinder-Care. Request for a
revised site plan amendment to locate a Kinder-Care Learning
Center in an Office District. 'A public meeting.
The Planner stated that this site was originally approved as Mile West Office in
1979. He stated that a day care center is a permitted use in the office zone
but stated that the proponent is requesting a site plan amendment. He introduced
Mr. Robert Fors of Kinder-Care Learning Centers.
Fors stated that Kinder-Care is a center out of Montgomery, AL and the building
will have a brick exterior.
The Planner reviewed the staff report dated November 4, *1981. He stated there will
be 9 parking stalls in the front of the building and stated that he has called
around to other Kinder-Care Learning Centers and found that the parking has been
adequate. He stated that cash park fee should be added to the staff report.
Torjesen asked The Planner if setbacks were looked at from what may eventually
be a public road. The Planner replied that the best solution would be to have the
entrance east along Mr. Steak but stated that is not contemplated at this time.
He stated that the other uses already surrounding the Center would not have the
proper setbacks for a public road.
Sutliff asked if the entrance by Chesters is a right-in only. The Planner replied
yes.
Hallett asked the age group for the Kinder-Care Center. Fors replied ages run from
6 months to 12 years.
Torjesen asked the grade for the property. The Planner replied 840 and stated that
it is appropriate.
MOTION
Marhula moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the revised site plan
to allow Kinder-Care to locate on the Mile West Office site as per the staff
report dated November 4, 1981 adding #5 Cash park fee; and #6 Proof of access on
the existing access easement. Torjesen seconded, motion carried 5-0.
approved .
Planning Commission Minutes -7- November 9, 1981
V. OLD BUSINESS
None
VI. NEW BUSINESS
None
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
The Planner reviewed the upcoming items for. the November 23, 1981 meeting
and stated that a request from AID Insurance Co. will be coming in around
December. He further stated that Edenvale Apartments have received HUD
approval and will be before the City Council for tax exempt bonds at their
next meeting. Parkview Chemical Deperidancy will break ground, and announced
a special meeting of the City Council to discuss Codification on 11/10/81.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Torjesen moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:59PM. Marhula seconded, motion
carried 5-0.
•