Loading...
Planning Commission - 08/23/1982 AGENDA Eden Prairie Planning Commission Monday, August 23, 1982 7:30 PM, City Hall COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman William Bearman, Liz Retterath, Hakon Torjesen, Dennis Marhula, Virginia Gartner, Grant Sutliff, Robert Hallett STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning Sue Hilgers, Planning Secretary Pledge of Allegiance - Roll Call I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA II. APPROVAL OF AUGUST 9, 1982 MINUTES III. MEMBERS REPORTS IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. SHADY OAK AMOCO, by Amoco Oil Company. Request for rezoning .93 acres from Rural to Hwy-Com and preliminary plat for construction of a gas station. Located in the southwest corner of Crosstown 62 and Shady Oak Road. A continued public hearing. B. NORTHWESTERN NATIONAL BANKSOUTH, by Banco Properties, Inc. Request to rezone 2.5 acres from Rural to C-Reg-Ser and preliminary plat the 2.5 acres for construction of North- western National Banksouth. Located in the northwest corner of TH 5 and future Prairie Center Drive. A public hearing. C. CHERNE CONTRACTING CORPORATION, by Cherne Contracting Corp. Request to rezone 17.43 acres from Industrial to Office for a 103,000 sq. ft. corporate headquarters and approval of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Located south of W. 78th Street. , (I-494) frontage road and between Gelco and Cabriole Center. A public meeting. V. OLD BUSINESS VI. NEW BUSINESS VII. PLANNER'S REPORT VIII. ADJOURNMENT MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION approved Monday, August 23, 1982 7:30 PM, City Hall MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman William Bearman, Dennis Marhula, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett MEMBERS ABSENT: Liz Retterath, Grant Sutliff, Hakon Torjesen STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning Sue Hilgers, Planning Secretary , Pledge of Allegiance - Roll Call I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Gartner moved to approve the agenda as submitted. Marhula seconded, motion carried 4-0. II. APPROVAL OF AUGUST 9, 1982 MINUTES P. 2, strike entire last paragraph P. 55 Motion, add: Also because of the Kingrey letter, Public Safety concerns, and prior commitments made by the City. P. 7, question was raised regarding the two motions listed on the page. The Planner stated that staff will correct this for the next meeting. P.10, 3rd para. , 2nd line, 'assured' should be 'advised' Gartner moved to continue approval of the August 9, 1982 minutes for clarification of Page 5 to the September 13, 1982 meeting. Marhula seconded, motion carried 4-0. III. MEMBERS REPORTS None IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. SHADY OAK AMOCO, by Amoco Oil Company. Request for rezoning .93 acres from Rural to Hwy-Com and preliminary plat for construction of a gas station. Located in the southwest corner of Crosstown 62 and Shady Oak Road. A continued public hearing. Bearman stated that the proponent has requested continuance to alter their site plan by redesigning the entrance points. MOTION Gartner moved to continue Amoco's public hearing to the September 13, 1982 meeting. Marhula seconded, motion carried 4-0. approved Planning'Eommission Minutes -2- August 23, 1982 B. NORTHWESTERN NATIONAL BANKSOUTH, by Banco Properties, Inc. Request to rezone 2.5 acres from Rural to C-Reg-Ser and preliminary ,plat the 2.5 acres for construction of North- western National Banksouth. Located in the northwest corner of TH 5 and future Prairie Center Drive. A public hearing. The Planner introduced Mr. Wally Kloos of Banco Properties , Inc. Kloos introduced Doug Watschke of Ackerberg & Associates and Bill Stein of North- western Banksouth. He stated that 60 parking spaces are provided and the setbacks exceed Ordinance requirements. 100' on the east side of the site will be left out of development because the Highway Department had asked for it for highway purposes. Banco does not own that portion of the site. They hope, though, that if the highway does not use the 100' that someday they can purchase the property. The legal description provided covers the total site with the exception of the 100' . The beginning construction date has not been set. He showed the realign- ment of Plaza Drive and Prairie Center Drive and a schematic design and elevations. The Planner reviewed the staff report dated 8/18/82. He stated that the property is located east of the Minnesota Tree b6ilding. The grades between this site and Edenvale 9th Addition do not match at this time, but will at time of develop- ment. Marhula stated he felt that the land use is appropriate for this site, but had concerns at looking at only 2.5 acres out of a 70 acre parcel. Bearman asked if a landscaping plan is proposed. Kloos replied that there is not one at this time, but there will be a plan at time of final plan approval . Bearman stated he would like to have continuity with the surrounding land use landscaping. Bearman asked that 'final landscaping plans be submitted prior to final plat- approval ' be added to the staff report as V. Marhula asked the distance of the excavation from the property line. Wally Carpenter replied 100-125' east of the property line. Carpenter also stated that the title of the property is held in an abstract. Marhula felt that a tremendous amount of fill is shown on the plans to fill the site. Carpenter stated that they would like the City to acquire the 100' on the eastern portion of the site and reimburse them through the Schrieber Bill . MOTION 1 Gartner moved to close the public hearing. Hallett seconded, motion carried 4-0. MOTION 2 Gartner moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the rezoning from Rural to C-Reg-Ser as per the plans dated July 1, 1982 and the August 18, 1982 staff report with the addition of #7: Owner shall submit a-detailed`!kandscaping plan prior to final plat approval . Hallett seconded, motion carried 4-0. approved Planning Commission Minutes -3= August 23, 1982 MOTION 3 Gartner moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the preliminary plat dated July 1, 1982 as per the August 18, 1982 staff report with the addition of #7: Owner shall submit a detailed landscaping plan prior to final plat approval . Hallett seconded, motion carried 4-0. C. CHERNE CONTRACTING CORPORATION, by Cherne Contracting Corp. Request to rezone 17.43 acres from Industrial to Office for an 88,075 sq. ft. corporate headquarters and approval of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Located south of W. 78th Street, (I-494) frontage road and between Gelco and Cabriole Center. A public meeting. The Planner introduced Mr. Steve Johnson, Vice President of Cherne, and Bill Cherne, and Tom Stahl , the architect. Johnson reviewed surrounding land uses. He stated the building will be centered on the lot and be a 5 story office building ,on a 100,000 sq. ft. site. The coloring will be cream, beige and white with bronze or grey colored glass. He reviewed the elevations and stated that it will be an 88,000 sq. ft. office. He stated that projections have been made that by Spring of 1984 there will be approximately 140-145 employees. They also expect the date of occupancy to be Spring of 1984. Expansion of parking is being provided with 59 additional cars for the main parking lot and an addition of 69 cars on the lower level . 273 spaces will be • provided at time of occupancy, with an end result of 411 spaces. Berms will be placed along W. 78th Street and stated that they would like to screen the parking lots extensively. The entrance/exit on -the east has been eliminated leaving the main entrance in the center of the site. There will also be a service drive on the west for the loading docks and the lower level parking. Retaining walls will be provided on the south side of the handball courts and on the north side of the raquetball courts. Drainage will be provided to the sediment ponds. Si zi ng of the sediment ponds -and-erosion' control, wi 11 ' be worked out wi'th the watershed district. He stated that Cherne Contracting Corp. and the City agree that the southern portion df the site should be preserved for wildlife. However, they are in disagreement as to who should maintain the wildlife. He gave com- parisons as to the amount of land preserved for the wildlife for Gelco, Cabriole Center, and Hartford-and also for setback requirements from the lake. Bearman stated that the southern portion of the site should be referred to the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission. The Planner stated that this piece of property is more impacted by the lake and wildlife than Cabriole Center. He stated that a study has been completed.which then resulted in a line being placed around the lake to preserve the wildlife. He stated he felt that the' Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission should make a recommendation regarding this. He stated that staff is recommending either a fence or landscaping be placed along this line. He stated that a variance is needed on the frontyard setback.which should be obtained by the Board of Appeals. Gartner asked if the red line is the back lot line. The Planner replied that it is the sanitary sewer line but the back lot line does fall in that area. He felt that the sedimentation ponds were well planned, and stated that at this line, the vegetation and soil type changes. approved Planning Commission Minutes -4- August 23, 1982 Gartner asked if the land on the�.,other side of the line is being managed. , The Planner replied no, that Hennepin County is developing a management plan for the area surrounding the lake. Hallett asked who will manage this section. The Planner replied the Hennepin County Park Preserve District, in an overall plan. Gartner asked why place a fence there. The Planner replied it could be either a fence or a landscape barrier. He commented that a landscape barrier is much more expensive than a fence. Bearman asked if the plans before the Commission are the building plans. Johnson replied it is in concept form. Bearman asked the outside material to be used. Johnson replied pre-cast concrete. Bearman asked the height of the building in relation to the existing surrounding buildings. The Planner replied that Cabriole Center is higher, that Gelco is the same height. Bearman stated that he was not prepared to make a valid judgement regarding the southern portion of the site. He wants the Parks, Recreation and Natural • Resources Commission to review it. Marhula asked if an 88,000 sq. ft. office building is needed for an ultimate total of 265 employees which is approximately double the average size office for that number of employees. Johnson replied that this size of building is needed because of the total space needed per person. Bearman asked if the buiYding is strictly for Cherne Contracting's use. Bill Cherne replied yes. Hallett stated that he would like to see correct management of the land. MOTION 1 Gartner moved to continue the public hearing to the September 13, 1982 meeting so that the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission can have adequate time to meet to discuss the outcome of the southern portion of the site. Marhula seconded for purposes of discussion. DISCUSSION Bearman stated he felt that the land use question may not have to be held up. Marhula stated he felt that there was no way that the Planning Commission could make a recommendation on the southern portion of the site. He felt it should be up to the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission. Gartner withdrew her motion. Marhula stated that this is not a public hearing, but a public meeting. approved Planning Commission Minutes -5- August 23, 1982 MOTION 1 Marhula moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the rezoning from Rural to Office as per the plans dated June 23, 1982 and the staff report dated August 19, 1982 adding that a variance for the frontyard setback must be obtained from the Board of Appeals. Hallett seconded. DISCUSSION Marhula stated that he felt it was important to stress that the Planning Commission is not making a pro or con judgement on the ultimate disposition of the southern portion of the site. The Planner stated that items 2, 3, and 8 of the staff report recommendations refer to a specific plan for the southern portion of the site and therefore, should be omitted. Marhula and Hallett agreed. Bearman felt that it should be stated that the southern portion is being referred to the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission for recommendations. Marhula and Hallett agreed. Motion carried 4-0. MOTION 2 Marhula moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the EAW finding of no significant impact. Hallett seconded. DISCUSSION Nlarhu�a stated that she felt that the sewer and water generation is high for this size of a project. The Planner stated that that number is based upon the number of employees forcasted. Motion carried 4-0. V% OLD BUSINESS None VI . NEW BUSINESS None VII. PLANNER'S' REPORT The Planner reported that the City Council had decided to have Kings Forest Road connect, St. John's Drive would have a knock-down barrier, and West 66th Street would be connected. The Planner introduced Steve Durham who will be working with the Planning Department as a student intern. He will be updating the City's population, making a large scale Guide Plan Map with color, etc. K r . approved Planning Commission Minutes -6- August 23, 1982 i Bearman stated he felt that the City should somehow, initiate or generate a plan to improve Highway 5. Bearman asked if there would be a way to improve Highway 5. The Planner replidd that he felt that if the Community took on the responsibility, the State would not improve it. Gartner statedshe felt that as long as Highway 5 remains as is, Highway 212 would be more likely to be built. The Planner stated he felt that the Highway Department has set aside 212. He stated that Duane Brown, MnDOT, had stated, at a previous meeting with staff members, that MnDOT is beginning to talk about doing something with Highway 5. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Gartner moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:25 PM. Marhula seconded, motion carried 4-0.