Loading...
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