Planning Commission - 05/10/1982 Y
AGENDA
Eden Prairie Planning Commission
Monday, May 10, 1982
7:30 PM, City Hall
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman William Bearman, Liz
Retterath, Hakon Torjesen, Dennis
Marhula, Virginia Gartner, Robert
Hallett, Grant Sutliff
STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
Sue Schulz, • Planning Secretary
Pledge of Allegiance - Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
II. APPROVAL OF APRIL 26, 1982 MINUTES
III. MEMBERS REPORTS
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. . CARDINAL CREEK 4TH ADDITION, by Cardinal Creek Associates.
Request o replat Outlot B and Lot 4, Block 3, Cardinal
Creek, and vacate the utility and drainage easements. A public
hearing.
B. CARDINAL CREEK 5TH ADDITION, by Gregory D. Gustafson & Associates.
Request to replat Lots 10 and 11 , Block 2, .Cardinal Creek 2nd Add-
tion to change the location of the side lot line, and to vacate utility
easements. A Public hearing.
C. BEST WESTERN OF EDEN PRAIRIE, by Norb Yenish. Request to replat
Lot 2, Block 1 , Eden Prairie Center 2nd Addition and construct
a 68 unit motel upon 22 acres. Located southwest of Eden Prairie
Shopping Center on the old Applebaum's site. A public hearing.
D. EDENVALE INDUSTRIAL PARK 6TH ADDITION, by Richard W. Anderson.
Request to replat Lot 4, Block 2, Edenvale Industrial Park 4th
Addtion and Lot 8, Block 1 , Edenvale Industrial Park 4th Addition
into 5.9 acre lot to be called Edenvale Industrial Park 6th Addition.
Located at the northeast end of Commerce Way. A public hearing.
E. SIGN AND SALES OFFICE REQUEST BY ADI FOR CITY WEST. Request for
advertising signs on the 80 acre City West development and the
placement of a building for a temporary sales office.A public meeting.
V. OLD BUSINESS
VI. NEW BUSINESS
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
approved
Monday, May 10, 1982 7:30 PM, City Hall
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman William Beaman, Liz Retterath,
Hakon Torjesen, Virginia Gartner, Grant
Sutliff, Dennis Marhula (7:45 pm) , Robert Hallett
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
Carrie Tietz (Substituting for Sue Schulz) , Recording
Secretary
Pledge of Allegiance - Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION: Torjesen moved to approve the agenda as submitted. Retterath
seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. (Marhula not present)
II. APPROVAL OF APRIL 26, 1982 MINUTES
Sutliff moved to approve the April 26, 1982 Minutes as corrected:
P. 2, last para. , line 3, .. .area and the lake, proposing three condominium
buildings, containing 66 units each.
P. 3, 1st para. , 12 changed to 1200.
P. 7,V.Motion. , Torjesen voted in favor instead of opposed.
Gartner seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. (Marhula not present)
III. MEMBERS REPORT - None
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. CARDINAL CREEK 4th ADDITION, by Cardinal Creek Associates. Request to
replat Outlot B and Lot 4, Block 3, Cardinal Creek, and vacate the
utility and drainage easements. This is a public hearing.
Dan Thiesen was present on behalf of the proponent, Gustafson &
Associates. He said the purpose of the request is so the eastern
most 10' of Lot 3, Block 2 is conveyed as a trail easement. The
trail will not go in at this time.
Enger reported that the Parks & Recreation Department feels there is
not much sense putting a trail in Cardinal Creek as it is doubtful a
trail will go in the Nine Mile Creek area which would be the connection.
Sutliff asked for clarification of who will pay for a trail if built.
Enger responded the developer would pay for it if built today, and the
City of Eden Prairie will pay for the trail if and when it is built
at a future time.
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -2- May 10, 1982
Hallett said the 20' trail easement must be worth something if the
developer does. not put in a trail .
Thiesen said the obligation is still with the developer to construct a
path, if not in this location the trail might be moved to another
location within Cardinal Creek. The decision to ask for the 10' at
this time is to make Lot 3 more buildable.
MOTION 1
TORJESEN moved to close the public hearing on Cardinal Creek 4th
Addition and vacation of easements. Retterath seconded the motion and
it carried 6-0-1, Marhula abstained.
DISCUSSION: Torjesen said he feels there are some unresolved questions
on this item but feels it is the Parks, Recreation and Natural
Resources Commission who should respond to them.
MOTION 2
Torjesen moved to recommend to the City Council approval of Cardinal
Creek 4th Addition and vacation of easements dated April 16, 1982, as
per the May 4, 1982 staff report and refer this item to the Parks,
Recreation and Natural Resources Commission as to need and timing of
bike trail . Retterath seconded the motion.
AMENDMENT TO MOTION 2: Torjesen amended the motion to include the
developer will be responsible for construction of trail when Park and
Recreation Department deems necessary. Retterath seconded the motion
and the amended mdtion carried 6-0-1, Marhula abstained.
MOTION 3
Torjesen moved to recommend that before this item goes to the City
Council , Staff inform property owners of the trail easement situation
and assure them that it is not a serious problen. Retterath seconded
the motion and it carried 6-0-1, Marhula abstained.
B. CARDINAL CREEK 5TH ADDITION, by Gregory D. Gustafson « Associates.
Request to replat Lots 10 and 11, Block 2, Cardinal Creek 2nd Addition
to change the location of the side lot line, and to vacate utility
easements. A public hearing.
Enger said the intent of this request is to realign the common lot line
of Lots 10 and 11, Block 2 to make Lot 11 larger. This would create a
10' setback instead of a 22' setback (this is a correction from Staff
memo of May 4, 1982) . He said consent has been given by the owner of
Lot 10.
Bearman said he finds the Staff memo confusing and asked for clarification
as to which lot will be increased and which decreased. Enger said the
memo is in error in the way it stated the setbacks (see above) . Lot 11
• will be increased by the realignment and Lot 10 will be decreased.
,approved
Planning Commission Minutes -3- May 10, 1982
MOTION 1
Sutliff moved to close the public hearing on Cardinal Creek 5th
Addition and vacation of easements. Hallett seconded the motion and
it carried 7-0.
MOTION 2
Sutliff moved to recommend approval of platting and locating of old
easement and accept new easement of Cardinal Creek 5th Addition.
Hallett seconded the motion and it carried 7-0.
C. BEST WESTERN OF EDEN PRAIRIE, by Norb Yenish. Request to replat Lot 2,
Block 1, Eden Prairie Center 2nd Addition and construct a 68 unit motel
upon 22 acres. Located southwest of Eden Prairie Shopping Center on
the old Applebaum's site. This is a public hearing.
Enger reviewed the Staff report of May 6,1982 (add date to Memo) and
cited the Staff recommendation and the different alternatives the
Planning Commission might take on this proposal .
Bob Olson, a real estate broker with Griffin Company, was present for
the rezoning request. Olson gave a short history of ownership of
this property, and said Applebaum's has decided not to build a super-
market in this location and is trying to sell the property.
iOlson said the developer is proposing a 68 unit motel on this property
and a free standing restaurant to be built at a future time.
Architect Bill Hahn spoke to the design and materials proposed for the
motel . He said it is planned to be a two story structure designed to
comply with all City building codes and specifications. He said the
site has good access and is convenient to business people and their
families flying into Flying Cloud Airport.
Enger said he feels there are two issues here for the Planning Commission
to consider: 1) Is a motel an appropriate land use for this site; and
2) If so, what changes need to be made to the site plan.
Enger said Commission members should consider whether or not this request
is compatible with the original PUD intent, consider surrounding land
uses; if a motel is the highest and best use of this site and if not
are there other areas in the Major Center Area etter suited for a motel .
He further said that this site is the last remaining piece of peripheral
land adjacent to the Eden Prairie Shopping Center without having to
cross Schooner Blvd. or US #169/212. He cited other major shopping
centers where the peripheral usesdirectly adjacent to the shopping center
somehow are symbiotic with the shopping center (such as Bonaventure at
Ridgedale). Staff feels there is a need for a motel in the Major Center
Area and there are many other sites where a motel would work.
• Enger said Staff feels the proposal shows too many accesses to the
interior roadway of the shopping center, and recommends the motel and
restaurant accesses should be consolidated.
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -4- May 10, 1982
Hahn said the developer would agree to combining the accesses. He
added that the developer will adhere to the City landscaping requirements
for proper screening of the motel .
Bearman said he feels a motel in this location would alter the character
of the entire area. He said a motel in this location is not a good plan.
Enger said we need to step back and realize what this area was proposed
for--community scale commercial facilities (library, banks, grocery,
restaurants, etc.) .
Olson said the developer does not argue with this use, but he said
situations change and some development here is better than nothing.
He said Homart has expressed no problem with a motel and First Edina
Bank, which owns adjacent property, is not opposed to the idea.
Marhula said the City has made a commitment to existing property owners,
and changing the land use to a motel changes the character of the
area more than a little bit. Marhula further said that he feels the
rezoning application is not clear and lacks much information. He feels
it is hard to proceed in making a judgement until more information is
given.
MOTION 1
Retterath moved to close the public hearing on the preliminary plat for
Lot 2, Block 1, Eden Prairie Center 2nd Addition. Sutliff, seconded the
motion and it carried 7-0.
MOTION 2
Retterath moved to recommend to the City Council that the proposed land
use is not consistent with the PUD and is not the best use for this
site thus recommends denial of the Best Western Motel . This Commission
encourages the proponent to look at other sites in the Major Center Area
for a motel . Sutliff seconded the motion and it carried 7-0.
D. EDENVALE INDUSTRIAL PARK 6TH ADDITION, by Richard W. Anderson. Request to
replat Lot 4, Block 2, Edenvale Industrial Park 4th Addition and Lot 8,
Block 1, Edenvale Industrial Park 4th Addition into 5.9 acre lot to be
called Edenvale Industrial Park 6th Addition. Located at the northeast
end of Commerce Way. This is a public hearing.
Enger reviewed Staff memo of 'May 6, 1982, wherein Staff. explains that the
proponent desires to combine Lot 4 and Lot 8 into one lot of .5.9 acres
in size.
Marhula asked why the developer wants to combine the lots. Brian Field,
present on behalf of Richard W. Anderson, explained that the developer
feels it is too restricted with two individual lots thus building 2
buildings. The developer wants to build one large, 90,000 sq. ft.
building and feels they can appeal to larger tenants which will aid
them in establishing more permanent financing.
.approved
Planning Commission Minutes -5- May 10, 1982
Marhula asked for assurance from the developer that they have a "real "
project. He said he recently spoke with people from Equitable Life
Insurance Company (fee owner) who said many people within the company
are unaware of Anderson's attempt to replat the property. He added that
the people from Equitable who are aware of the process did not express
objection, only that the developer has a reputation of not going through
with commitments and they hoped this would not be the case here.
Field said the developer plans to begin construction in 30 days if they
receive the proper approvals. Scott Anderson (Richard W. Anderson
Associates) confirmed this schedule.
Bearman asked if the trees on the eastern part of the site would be
removed to locate the building. The foliage in that area appears quite
extensive. Field said he could not say exactly where the building will
be placed but that it will be perpendicular to the southern lot line,
nearer to Commerce Way.
Torjesen asked if it is customary for a replat request to be made without
sharing what the intentions for the replat are.
Enger said the Edenvale Industrial Park was platted and zoned 12 years
ago. He added that he thought this Commission would not need a site
plan because this is not a building review but a request for replatting.
He added that it is not customary to review the site plans when requests
of this nature come in. Enger said this was an oversight on his part and
if the Planning Commission wishes to see the grading, site, utility
plans, etc. , then it certainly is within their discretion to request
them.
Bearman said he feels one building on this site instead of two will
definitely make a difference in parking, truck routing, etc. One
larger building will have more impact on the topography than two smaller
ones. He asked if this project could be continued until the site plans,
etc. , are available.
S. Anderson said any delay would kill the project due to the financial
negotiations pending. Old Stone Bank of Providence, Rhode Island,
and First Bank of Hopkins are the prime lenders.
Enger said that in his opinion it makes little difference if the site
consists of one lot or two. However, he understands that the Commission
would like to see how the building is handled on the site. Enger added
that the topography will be altered no matter what. The Council meets
Tuesday, May 18, 1982. He suggested perhaps this Commission take action
on the preliminary plat and request to see the detail site plans prior
to final plat review.
MOTION 1
Torjesen moved to close the public hearing on the preliminary plat.
Sutliff seconded the motion and it carried 6-0-1, Marhula abstained.
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -6- May 10, 1982
MOTION 2
Torjesen moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the Edenvale
Industrial 6th Addition dated April 23, 1982, based upon the May 6, 1982
staff report with the provision that the site plan be approved by this
body prior to building permit issuance. Sutliff seconded the motion and
it carried 5-1-1, Marhula abstained and Bearman opposed.
DISCUSSION: Marhula said this Commission has approved City West subject to
site plan review by the 'Planning Commission but plans have not been seen.
Bearman said the Commission has not seen the whole package and if we look
at history, this kind of action does not work.
Retterath said she agrees with Bearman but will not change her vote.
E. SIGN AND SALES'OFFICE-REQUEST-BY ADI FOR CITY WEST. Request for
advertising signs on the 80 acre City West deve opment and the placement
of a building for a temporary sales office. This is a public meeting.
Enger reviewed the Staff memo of May 7, 1982, describing the overall
master plan for the signage package for City West. Enger reviewed the
Planning Staff recommendations per memo of May 7, 1982. He siad Staff.'s
recommendation is exclusive of the City sign ordinance. Enger said the
City sign ordinance has a provision for projects of this size, that
the scale of signs should match the scale of the project as determined
by Staff and the Planning Commission. Enger noted that the two 10'x12'
signs along Shady Oak Road (not to exceed 18 feet total height) must be
well maintained and must be removed when 80% of the City West project
is complete (as determined by the City) . The signs approved for each
of the individual building projects (Plaza's I, II, III, hotel and
residential sites) must be removed with the completion' of each respective
project. The crane sign (not to exceed 80 sq. ft. ) is to be removed when
not in immediate use (as determined by the City) .
Retterath asked if this Commission will review the permanent signage.
Enger said only if the developer desires to carry the sign theme throughout
the entire project and if their plan differs from the City ordinance.
S. Anderson reviewed the proposed temporary sales office/display center
for City West. He described it as a 15'x20' , 2,000 sq.ft.. center with
10 parking spaces. The developer wishes to make a very positive impression
for prospective clients so the center will be heavily landscaped and
designed for visual impact. Anderson invited all Commission members to
visit the facility upon completion and see the site as the client will
see it (including slide show and tour) .
Torjesen asked if what this Commission is seeing before them now is the
exact City West PUD approved by the City Council .
Enger said all the recommendations of the Planning Commission for City
West were adopted by the City Council , and the project which is now being
contemplated is the identical one that this Commission approved (the
approval included 18± contingencies). ,
x
-approved
Planning Commission Minutes -7- May 10, 1982
•
Marhula said he would like to see the final site plan detail on the
City West project. Bearman agreed.
MOTION 1
Hallett moved to close the public meeting. Sutliff seconded the motion
and it carried 7-0.
MOTION 2
Hallett moved to recommend final approval of the signage request for
City West per Staff recommendation Items 1-7 of memo dated May 7, 1982.
Gartner seconded the motion and it carried 7-0.
DISCUSSION: Retterath added an Item 8 to the memo of May 7, 1982, that
this Commission review the permanent signage for City West. She added
that this Commission might accept Mr. Anderson's offer to come out to
the site and review the final signage.
V. OLD BUSINESS - gone
VI. NEW BUSINESS
Gartner asked if Topview Road could have come before the Planning Commission.
Enger said when Menard's was being built, there was to be a connection between
Valley View Road and Schooner Boulevard. At that time many residents objected
and the City decided not to make the connection. Now, a petition of 150
signatures (instigated by the volunteer fire department) has been received
by the City to put in the connection at this time. The City prepared 4
alternatives and the City Council approved one of them which would put in
the connection. Now the people who did not sign the petition are upset that
a connection is going to be put in.
Gartner said she has heard that many people who signed the petition were not
aware of the exact conditions of the petition and are unhappy with the decision.
Hallett requested Staff to check on the status of Kurtz Lane in Edenvale.
Hallett also remarked that the entrance signs to Eden Prairie is in terrible
disrepair and the residential count needs to be updated.
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
The Planner reviewed upcoming items.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Marhula moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:10 p.m. Torjesen seconded the
motion and it carried 7-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Carrie Tietz
Acting Recording Secretary