Loading...
Planning Commission - 05/19/1982 AGENDA Eden Prairie Planning Commission Wednesday, May 19, 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 Hilgers, Planning Secretary Pledge of Allegiance -- Roll Call I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA II. MEMBERS REPORTS III. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. EDEN PRAIRIE PARTNERSHIP, by Undestad Investment Company. Request for a Planned Unit Development Concept approval for industrial uses on 32 acres(27acres of which is zoned I-2) , rezoning from Rural to I-2 for approximately 5 acres, preliminary plat approval of 6 lots and 3 outlots, possible variances from the I-2 District, and approval of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Located in the Southeast quadrant of the intersection of Co.Rd. 67 and the Chicago Northwestern Railway. A public hearing. B. EDENVALE INDUSTRIAL PARK 6TH ADDITION, by Richard W. Anderson. Request for site plan approval. Located at the northeast end of Commerce Way. A public meeting. C. EDENVALE 9TH ADDITION, by Equitable Life Assurance Society. Request for a Guide Plan Amendment to change approximately 36 acres from regional commercial to industrial , a Planned Unit Development Concept for office and industrial uses upon 99 acres, rezoning from Rural to Office for 55 acres and from Rural to I-2 for 36 acres, preliminary plat approval , and possible variances. Located north of TH 5, west of proposed Schooner Boulevard& south of proposed Valley View Road. A public hearing. D. EDENVALE 16TH ADDITION, by Equitable LIfe Assurance Society. Request to rezone 19 acres from Rural to Office, and approval of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Located north of TH 5-- and-east and we_st_ of _Purgatory Creek. A public meeting._ IV. OLD BUSINESS V. NEW BUSINESS VI. PLANNER'S REPORT VII. ADJOURNMENT MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION .approved Wednesday, May 19, 1982 7:30 PM, City Hall MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman William Bearman, Liz Retterath, Dennis Marhula, Virginia Gartner, Grant Sutliff, Robert Hallett MEMBERS ABSENT: Hakon Torjesen STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning Sue Hilgers, Planning Secretary I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Retterath moved to approve the agenda as submitted. Sutliff seconded, motion carried 6-0. II. MEMBERS REPORTS None III. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. EDEN PRAIRIE PARTNERSHIP, by Undestad Investment Company. F Request for a Planned Unit Development Concept approval for industrial uses on 32 acres (27 acres of which is zoned I-2) , rezoning from Rural to I-2 for approximately 5 acres, prelim- inary plat approval of 6 lots and 3 outlots, possible variances from the I-2 District, and approval of an Environmental Assess- ment Worksheet. Located in the Southeast quadrant of the intersection of Co. Rd. 67 and the Chicago Northwestern Railway. A public hearing. Bearman asked why rezoning is being asked for at a concept stage request. The Planner replied that this is a unique situation because the majority of the site is already zoned for Industrial. There is no staff report at this time because there are some problems which need to be worked out. He introduced John Shardlow and Geoff Martin. Bearman asked that the letter from John Shardlow dated 5/14/82 should be made part of the minutes. Shardlow, Howard Dahlgren & Associates, stated that Franklin National Bank owns the property and would like to sell it to Mr. Undestad (they have a purchase agreement) . 27 of the 32 acres are zoned Industrial . He gave a brief slide presentation depicting the location of the site and the surrounding land uses. The site will be of office/ warehouse uses. Held a neighborhood meeting on 4/22/82. The Planner stated that no staff report had been compiled but stated that the Compre- hensive Guide Plan contemplates industrial north of the collector road with residential to the south of it. He suggested placing multiple family residential or small office residential in character such as Lakeridge Office Park on the southern portion of the site rather than industrial- He also suggested preserving the buffer entirely or providing a strong visual barrier between the buildings and the property to the south of the site. approved Planning Commission Minutes -2 May 19, 1982 Sutliff asked the distance between the Bury property and the back property line. Martin replied approximately 300' . Hallett asked the size of Outlot C. Shardlow replied 12 acres and stated that the proponents have talked with the Bury's and they asked if it would be possible to buy more land. Mr. Undestad and Mr. Bury are discussing it at present. Hallett asked who owns Outlot C: Shardlow replied Franklin National Bank. Marhula asked if Undestad is the developer? builder? Shardlow replied that he is the acting developer and has an option to buy the land. He also might build and own some parcels on the site. Bearman expressed concern that the collector street will not go through the project. He stated he felt that if the street went through, the southern portion of the site could be developed for something other than industrial . He asked if any buildings are ready to be built. Undestad stated that he has plans for two buildings which would be ready to go once they receive final approval from the City. Bearman asked if the property were rezoned to I-5 instead of I-2 if there would be better control for berming the site. The Planner stated that I-5 would have larger lots, larger front yard setbacks, and would be easier to screen. Bearman stated he would like to see a sketch showing I-2 vs. I-5 zoning. Bearman asked if the proponent could have just replatted the site. The Planner re- plied yes as one large lot. Sutliff asked about the crossing of the railroad tracks. The Planner stated it would be at grade. Sutliff asked if ADI's road and this project's road are in conjunction. The Planner replies no, ADI 's is to the east of this road. Sutliff stated he would like to see a road map in conjunction. Hallett expressed concern with a 100' setback on one side and 50' on the other for the amount of berming possible. Dick Sather, 6511 Manchester Lane, stated he liked the buffering but would like Manchester Lane continued. ,Tom Striker, 6540 Leesborough, was concerned that the hill behind his house would be taken away which serves as a buffer for him. Mrs. Hoel , 6510 Manchester Lane, wanted the hill and trees saved, and stated her opposition to the project. Shardlow stated that the trees on the hill will be saved. Roger Sandvick, 14280 Stratford Road, felt that a 100' buffer was not adequate and was concerned with the elimination of the collector street. Woodrow Bjork, 14302 Stratford Road, stated that he has seen changes since the neighborhood meeting, but stated they are not all the same. • :_approved Planning Commission Minutes -3- May 19; 1982 •Jerry Wolf, 6600 Canterbury, was concerned with the berming. Ghris Peterson, 6714 Canterbury, was concerned with: types of buildings to be built, what will be stored on-site, and stated that his previous home was by industrial uses and was broken into three times in the daylight hours. Roland Wyman, 6560 Leesborough Ave. , stated he would like the 50' setback increased to 75' . Richard Mavison, 6613 Canterbury Lane, stated that when he moved into his home, he was told that Canterbury Lane would not be continued to a through street and voiced his concern for adequate buffering. Shardlow stated that after the neighborhood meeting the plan had added buffering, but he had not changed the slides yet. He then showed the added buffering. Melma Mavison, 6613 Canterbury Lane, expressed her concern for the noise to be gen- erated and also the berming. Sutliff asked to see elevations where Birch Island Road would be in conjunction with this site. MOTION Retterath moved to continue the item to the June 14, 1982 meeting. Gartner seconded, motion carried 6-0. B. EDENVALE INDUSTRIAL PARK 6TH ADDITION, by Richard W. Anderson. Request for site plan approval. Located at the northeast end of Commerce Way. A public meeting. The Planner stated that Craig Anderson and Warren Isrealson were present representing Richard W. Anderson, Inc. He stated that the Commission had requested to see this plan which is a combination of two lots. He had visited the site and recommended approval. Bearman asked the floor area ratio (FAR) . The Planner replied 29% building coverage. MOTION Sutliff moved to approve the site plan of Edenvale Industrial Park 6th Addition as per the plans dated October 28, 1981 and the updated site plan dated 5/13/82. Retterath seconded, motion carried 6-0. C. EDENVALE 9TH ADDITION, by Equitable Life Assurance Society. Request for a Guide Plan Amendment to change approximately 36 acres from regional commercial to industrial , a Planned Unit Development Concept for office and industrial uses upon 99 acres, preliminary plat approval with possible variances. Located north of TH 5, west of proposed Schooner Boulevard and south of proposed Valley View Road. A public hearing. Bearman asked why rezoning is being requested. The Planner stated that it is not being requested, and that that is incorrect. He stated that Dick Krier of Westwood Planning and Engineering was present to give a presentation. ,approved Planning Commission Minutes -4- May 19, 1982 Krier stated that they want an amendment to the PUD. He gave a brief slide presen- tation and stated the use would be office and office/warehouse with some owner occupied buildings. Bearman asked if the land has been restored according to ordinance. Krier replied that he understood that the gravelling was done prior to the existing ordinance. Krier went on to review the grading, elevations, utilities, and stated that the middle entrance would be a one-way road and the loop road would be two-way. He felt that a detailed landscaping plan would be inappropriate at this time. The Planner reviewed the staff report dated 5/13/82. He-stated he_ felt that some aspects of the plans need to be more closely_reviewed. _He_statedthat_there are many unanswered questions with these plans as is. He stated he felt the proposed grading is reasonable. He felt that the concept plan was good but an overall plan of what will be on the site is needed (materials, continuity, etc. ) such as a development framework manual . Transportation will be via Valley View Road. He suggested a sidewalk system be incorporated, and stated all City standards should be adhered to. He recommended approval with changes. Hallett asked if a restaurant was planned for on the site. Krier replied no. Hallett asked the number of employees expected. Krier replied 1000 - 2000. Hallett stated he would like to see a restaurant and walkways placed on the site. • Sutliff stated he felt that restrictions should be placed on the project to keep the project uniformed (such as a design framework manual). Bearman agreed. Hallett also agreed. Sutliff asked the percentage of the site to be graded of which the excess would be moved and sold. Krier replied approximately 75% after the conservancy zone. He stated that an average cut is approximately 40' . Sutliff asked the total earth moving. Krier replied 300,000 cubic yards. He .stated that the proponent has authority to move 125,000 cubic yards at present. Bearman asked if the site was- originally designated for -regional-commercial . The Planner replied yes origin fl y , when the demographics were expected to be different. Bearman stated he would like to see a model of the site. Sutliff asked how long the total mining of the project will last. Krier replied 60 days. Vicki Koehnen, 1739 Topview Road stated she would like the conservancy zone protected. Bearman stated he would like to see specifications, lighting, conservancy zone dedica- tion to the City, smaller buildings on the creek side, continuity of building materials, pedestrian walkways, and a model of the site. Retterath agreed and stated she would • like the covenants in a brochure form so they will be easier to read. f r 1 approved Planning Commission Minutes -5- May 19, 1982 • Vicki Koehnen stated she was concerned also for screening of the property and asked if the hill by the gravel pit will be taken down. Krier replied that a 40' cut will be the maximum and a 20' cut will be the minimum. MOTION 1 Sutliff moved to close the public hearing on Edenvale 9th Addition. Hallett seconded, motion carried 5-0-1. Marhula abstained because he works for the firm representing Equitable Life. MOTION 2 Sutliff moved to return the project to the proponent for clarification of the Planning Commission and the Planner's concerns; cuts, fills, covenants, specifications , lighting, conservancy zone dedication to the City, smaller buildings placed on the Creek side, continuity of building materials, pedestrian pathways, and a model . Gartner seconded. DISCUSSION Sutliff expressed concern for the amount of cut and fill required. AMENDMENT Hallett moved to approve the Comprehensive Guide Plan change subject to an overall plan including but not limited to the above mentioned concerns in Motion 2. Sutliff agreed. Gartner did not agree. Amendment carried 3-2-1. Retterath and Gartner voted no, Marhula abstained. VOTE ON MOTION 2 Motion as amended carried 5-0-1. Marhula abstained. D. EDENVALE 16TH ADDITION, by Equitable Life Assurance Society. Request to rezone 19 acres from Rural to Office, and approval of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Located north of TH 5 and east and west of Purgatory Creek. A public meeting. The Planner stated that' this proposal falls within the 212 Corridor. He stated that the Schrieber Bill has now passed through the Legislature and provides for funding of acquisition for these parcels. An alternative would be to approve the project as is, approve the project with modification, deny the project, or recommend an action of acquisition of the property to the City Council . If the only reason for denying the rezoning is because of the road alignment and the City is not prepared to buy the project, the project is then placed in adverse condemnation situation. In this case the City has a very good probability of being able to acquire the property. He stated that Mr. Dick Krier of Westwood Planning and Engineering was present to give a presentation if the Commission would like ,to hear one. Bearman felt that this project would be a good opportunity to -, get the commitment started for the 212 Corriidor. Sutliff asked if the Department of Transportation has submitted any input. The Planner stated that he had talked over the phone with them and has incorporated their thoughts into the staff report but a written report has not been made. • The Planner is suggesting no action on the project other than to recommend purchase of the property to the City Council. Krier stated that he had talked with the proponent and stated that they would entertain purchase of the property. • E , .approved Planning Commission Minutes -6- May 19, 1982 • MOTION Gartner moved to table the item without prejudice in order to request the City Council to act according to the Schrieber Bill and attempt to purchase the property for the 212 Corridor. Retterath seconded, motion carried 5-0-1. Marhula abstained because he works for the firm representing Equitable Life but stated he supported the action. IV. OLD BUSINESS None V. NEW BUSINESS None VI. PLANNER' S REPORT The Planner reviewed upcoming items. VII. ADJOURNMENT Marhula moved to adjourn the meeting at 11:53PM. Hallett seconded, motion carried 6-0.