Loading...
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. •