Loading...
Planning Commission - 03/28/1983 f AGENDA Eden Prairie Planning Commission Monday, March 28, 1983 7:30 p.m., City Hall COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman William Bearman, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett, Stan Johannes, Dennis Marhula, Ed Schuck, Hakon Torjesen STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning Kate Karnas, Planning Secretary I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA II. ELECTION OF OFFICERS III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES IV. MEMBERS REPORTS V. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. LAVONNE INDUSTRIAL PARK, by Norman Undestad. Request for Site Plan Review of 3.97 acres for an office/warehouse site. Location: North of Edenvale Boulevard, east of Chicago Northwestern Railroad. A public meeting. B. FACTORY OUTLET CENTRE, by AmCon Corporation. Request for Planned Unit Development District Review for a shopping mall, with possible variances, on 16.2 acres, Zoning from Rural to C-Regional Service on 16.2 acres, and Preliminary Platting of 27.6 acres into one lot and 3 outlots. Location: South of Valley View Road, West of I-494. VI. OLD BUSINESS VII. NEW BUSINESS VIII. PLANNER'S REPORT IX. ADJOURNMENT MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, March 28, 1983 City Hall , 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman William Bearman (8:30 p.m.), Robert Hallett, Stan Johannes, Dennis Marhula, Hakon Torjesen MEMBERS ABSENT: Virginia Gartner, Ed Schuck STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning Kate Karnas, Planning Secretary Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Hallett to adopt the agenda as presented with the exception of moving item #II, Election of Officers, to a point after item #IV, Development Proposals. Motion carried--4-0-0 III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Hallett, to approve the minutes of the March 14, 1983 meeting as printed. Motion carried--3-0-1 (Acting Chairman Torjesen abstained) IV. MEMBERS REPORTS None. V. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. LAVONNE INDUSTRIAL PARK, by Norman Undestad. Request for Site Plan Review of 3.97 acres for an office/warehouse site. Location: North of Edenvale Boulevard, east of Chicago Northwestern Railroad. A public meeting. Staff reviewed the request of the proponent with the Commission and reviewed the Staff Report of March 25, 1983. It was stated that the project had been brought to the Commission as a result of a requirement of the Developer's Agreement with Eden Prairie Partnership for this property from 1982. This requirement was made Planning Commission Minutes 2 March 28, 1983 part of the Agreement due to the fact that the existing residential area to the south was in such close proximity to the site; therefore, each site must return to the Planning Commission and Council for review and approval, prior to building permit issuance. Mr. Bill Hennemuth, RCM, representing the proponent, presented the proposal to the Commission. He stated that the project was the most northerly parcel of this industrial area and would be known as the Track Line building. Mr. Hennemuth reviewed the exterior materials to be used and the landscaping proposed for the site. Staff pointed out that the proponent's plans indicated filling approximately one-half acre of the area designated as floodplain in the north central portion of the site. Planner Enger stated that this would be a hydrological question since the area was not designated as Public Waters to be dealt with by the Watershed District. p It was also pointed out that parking spaces had been provided based on the actual uses proposed within the structure--this was not proposed to be a "spec" building. Planner Enger stated that it • would be important in this case to allow for flexibility within the site plan in the event owners changed since only 70 parking spaces were provided and normally a building of this size would require 120 parking spaces. A 30-space parking buffer was proposed in the north area of the building, an area which has the least impact on the residential area to the south. DISCUSSION: Marhula questioned what the value of the building would be. Mr. Norman Undestad, owner, stated that it would be one million dollars. Marhula stated that he concurred with Staff that the parking areas to the north and south of the proposed building showed insufficient screening. He suggested that the proponent invest more into the landscaping of the building site in order to maintain it as a desirable property, in addition to fulfilling the requirements of the City Code for landscape screening. Marhula also stated that he felt it would be to the proponent's advantage to allow for the additional 30-space parking buffer, especially if, and when, the building would be sold so that it could possibly be sold to a use needing more than the 70 parking spaces shown. Hallett questioned how the City would be protected, if the building was sold and more spaces were needed by the new tenant(s) . Planner Enger stated that this would be controlled by checking this matter at the time of request for an occupancy or remodeling permit by the new tenants or owners. Hallett asked if criteria had been established for where and when Planning Commission Minutes 3 March 28, 1983 • the City would require sidewalks or trails to be located within industrial areas. Planner Enger stated that normally sidewalks were not required in industrial areas. There was a sidewalk planned along one side of the east-west road serving this industrial park. Hallett stated that he would like the issue of sidewalks to be placed on a future Planning Commission meeting agenda. He added that he felt it was important for the City to begin requiring sidewalks in industrial and commercial areas. The other Commission members concurred in the need for further study. Johannes questioned what additional site preparation would be necessary to provide the 30-space parking buffer--specifically, would additional fill or soil correction be necessary. Mr. Hennemuth stated that the area was already planned to be prepared with the original grading of the site. If the additional spaces became necessary, it would be a matter of adding the hard surfacing to the area. Johannes asked which public accesses would be used for the site. Staff responded that the public roads would be part of a public improvements project in this area, which would be assessed to the abutting property owners. This would be done at the time of • building the Track Line structure. Acting Chairman Torjesen questioned whether the construction of the building was contingent upon the road being built. Mr. Undestad stated that it was not. Planner Enger stated that the road improvements were underway in the City's Engineering Department. Acting Chairman Torjesen asked if the 10 ft. wide planting strip on the south end of this site was adequate for the proposed use. Staff responded that it was expected that an additional 10 ft., totalling 20 ft., would be added with the development of the next lot, which was standard for industrial parks in Eden Prairie. Roger Sandvig, 14280 Stratford Road stated that he was concerned with the proposed use of metal facia at the top of the building. He questioned whether the proponent might be starting a precedent for a type of building material to be used by each additional building which would be part of this area. He stated that his major concern was reflective glare from the metal materials. Mr. Sandvig also requested that additional evergreen plantings be used for screening the property from adjacent residents. He stated that, in his opinion, evergreen plantings provided better protection than deciduous plantings. He also asked the Commission to require trees of 4-6 ft. in height for the proposed landscaping plan of is this site and those to follow in this project. Mr. Hennemuth responded that the metal facia proposed would be ribbed with a dull , not glossy finish to it, which would not be reflective. Planning Commission Minutes 4 March 28, 1983 Planner Enger stated that the exterior materials should also consider an architecurally integral manner of screening the rooftop mechanical equipment. While screening of rooftop mechanical was a requirement of the City Code, the proponents often are not in a position to know the exact location of the equipment until the end of the meeting process, or at the time of building permit issuance. It had become difficult and sometimes subjective at that point to require screening in an architecurally integral manner of the mechanical equipment. While this level of detail was not necessarily considered at the. Planning Commission level, Staff suggested that, with industrial buildings, the City begin requiring that the Commission review the screening proposed at this point in the process to avoid problems at the time of building permit issuance. Marhula stated that he shared the concern of Mr. Sandvig regarding the screening for the site. He asked Staff for their opinion regarding additional evergreen trees. Planner Enger responded that evergreen trees did provide screening; however, deciduous trees also could buffer views from higher elevations where evergreens could not. Acting Chairman Torjesen asked Staff if the proponent's proposal was in substantial compliance with the conditions of the Developer's • Agreement for this property. Planner Enger responded that it was, subject to the recommendations as listed in the Staff Report of March 25, 1983. Mr. Sandvig asked if it would be possible to require that none of the buildings of this industrial area be allowed to use metal as an exterior material. Mr. Undestad stated that he wanted all of the buildings in the development to look different from each other, not to be copies of each other. MOTION: Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Johannes, to recommepd to the City Council approval of the site plan for LaVonne Industrial Park by Norman Undestad for 3.97 acres for an office/warehouse use, subject to plans and written materials dated March 4, 1983, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated March 25, 1983, with the addition of a condition #7 to read: "All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened in an architecturally integral manner to the rest of the building. Motion carried--4-0-0 Chairman Bearman arrived at 8:30 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes 5 March 28, 1983 B. FACTORY OUTLET CENTRE, by AmCon Corporation. Request for Planned Unit Development District Review for a shopping mall, with possible variances, on 16.2 acres, Zoning from Rural to C-Regional Service on 16.2 acres, and Preliminary Platting of 27.6 acres into one lot and 3 outlots. Location: South of Valley View Road, West of I-494. Staff reviewed proponent's request with the Commission and reviewed the recommendations of the Staff Report of March 25, 1983. Planner Enger also presented slides of the site, pointing out major roadways surrounding the site, visibility of the site from the roadways, and visibility of the site from adjacent land uses. Staff pointed out that, when measuring the site plan Code requirements against the size of the site and the proposed usage, the plan appeared to be "tight." As to the screening provided, Staff stated that there were several areas inadequate where screening was planned. Mr. Patrick Gannon of AmCon, proponent, gave an overview of the site and the proposed usage. • Planner Enger pointed out that the land use proposed was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The area had been designated for commercial uses, specifically for large, free-standing types of uses, such as Menards. Staff pointed out that the traffic system for the area, which was currently under construction, was designed to handle the capacity which would be generated from this use. Planner Enger stated that, as was evident from the slides, the site was not visible from north- bound J-494, quite visible from south-bound I-494, quite visible from Highway #5, and visible currently from the Topview residential area to the north of the site. The Topview area would be able to see more of the site in the future due to the planned construction and relocation of Valley View Road. Due to these visibility factors from two critical locations, screening of the site was an important consideration. Planner Enger indicated that more landscaping and green space on the site would aid in relieving the look of a massive blacktopped area. Staff was suggesting that at least 50% additional landscaped islands be added to the site within the parking area. More space for proposed berming/green strip areas was suggested for the south and west portions of the site. More and larger berms were needed along Plaza Drive and along Schooner Boulevard than were shown by proponent. . Planner Enger stated that traffic circulation within the site could be improved through medians added to guide and direct traffic along the perimeter road. Also, another matter of concern to Staff was the screening of Planning Commission Minutes 6 March 28, 1983 rooftop mechanical equipment for the building since the roof would be visible from the Topview area. The structure as proposed was 151,327 sq. ft., covering over 3.5 acres, itself. With 30 tenants proposed, it would be possible for a substantial amount of rooftop mechanical equipment to be needed for the structure. Proponent had not presented a plan for this. DISCUSSION Chairman Bearman questioned whether Plaza Drive would be constructed with this project. The proponent responded that it would. Chairman Bearman asked about the timetable for construction of Valley View Road. Planner Enger stated that this road would be under construction within approximately two years on the north side of this site. Planner Enger pointed out that proponent was showing only one sign for the site to be 21 ft. by 12 ft., with no wall signs proposed for the individual tenants. Staff was recommending in favor of the proposed signage plan. Also, sidewalks were proposed along Plaza Drive and along Prairie Center Drive for pedestrian access to the area. • Marhula questioned how this project fit with the original development plan submitted by Menards. Staff stated that there had been an informal development plan submitted with the original Menards site. Marhula expressed concern regarding the usage of the "strip" of land which would be remaining on the southwest side of Plaza Drive if the property was platted as proposed by the proponent. Marhula asked the proponent why the building was located toward the top of the lot instead of centered. He stated that, because of the site plan, the north and south entrances had very few parking spaces close to them for customers. Mr. Gannon explained that the Metropolitan Sewer Interceptor was located along the easterly edge of the property. The proponents were not allowed to locate a building on top, or within so many feet, of the interceptor. Chairman Bearman asked Mr. Burkemper on what experience they were basing the amount of parking. Mr. Jim Burkemper,' AmCon Corporation, stated that, while they had no long-range experience with any of their other centers of this type, this was the experience of the industry as a whole. Chairman Bearman asked if tenants had committed to spaces in this location at this time. Mr. Burkemper stated that they had not. • Mr. Burkemper addressed the issue of the number of parking spaces provided. He stated that the existing ratio for parking spaces in shopping centers in Eden Prairie at this time ranged from 5.5 to 6.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. They had proposed 6.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. as the top of the range of what was actually being done in the Planning Commission Minutes 7 March 28, 1983 • City. Staff stated that they did not have any objections to the parking space formula as proposed, since the City's Code was based upon free standing retail stores, not malls. Marhula asked what the budgets for the building and for landscaping were for the site. Mr. Burkemper responded that the building would be approximately 3.5 million dollars, the landscaping budget was $65,000. Johannes stated that he felt this site was one of the prime development sites in the City, and that the Highway #5, I-494 intersection was a gateway to Eden Prairie. He stated that he had seen other factory outlet types of buildings which were not attractive, and added that he did not feel an unattractive building site was appropriate for this location. Johannes concurred with Staff that the landscaping/screening plan was insufficient and that more attention was needed in this regard to make this a successful project for the City and for the proponent. Torjesen expressed concern for the "strip" outlot which would be left over after platting of the factory outlet property. Marhula stated that he felt it would be important to know what would • happen with the "strip" outlot. He stated that he did not feel it would be appropriate to make a decision as to land use for this area without knowing the affect of the land use decision on the adjacent properties. Mr. Marvin Prochaska, owner of Menards, stated that a plan was available showing the proposed uses of the site. He stated that the types of uses would be free standing retail or service uses, perhaps a fast food restaurant. Marhula stated that the access to the west would pose a visibility problem as it was located on the inside of a curved street. Planner Enger suggested that this access could be relocated further south. Torjesen stated that he concurred with the Staff Report recommendation regarding the site being too small . He suggested that the building be scaled down or the space available for the use be increased to meet the concerns of Staff. Mr. Burkemper asked for a summary of the changes requested. Planner Enger stated that there was a need for increased landscaping around the parking lot, the perimeter of the building, and for screening purposes; screening of rooftop mechanical in an architecturally integral manner; traffic circulation be more directive at the interior of the site; plans be presented for the "strip" area to remain on the west side of Plaza Drive. • Johannes expressed concern for the traffic flow during the period of time after the project was constructed to the point where Prairie Center Drive would be completed. He questioned whether Highway #5 would be able to handle this traffic. Planner Enger responded that Planning Commission Minutes 8 March 28, 1983 it could for the interim period of time. Chairman Bearman asked for comments and questions from members of the audience. Mr. Tom Kasperczyk, 7343 Ann Court, stated concerns regarding the visibility of the project from his home. He also stated concern for the City's plans for noise and visual buffering of his home from the proposed Valley View Road ramp to I-494. Planner Enger stated that there were no plans for buffering the Topview neighborhood from the ramp area at this time. MOTION: Motion was made by Torjesen, seconded by Marhula, to continue the public hearing in order for the proponent to revise the site plan per the Staff Report of March 25, 1983. Motion carried--5-0-0 II. ELECTION OF OFFICERS MOTION: • Motion was made by Torjesen, seconded by Hallett, to postpone election of officers to the April 11, 1983 meeting. Motion carried--5-0-0 VI. OLD BUSINESS None. VII. NEW BUSINESS Sidewalks in Industrial Districts It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that Staff be directed to research the matter regarding sidewalks in industrial areas, providing information about the positive and negative affects of having sidewalks located in such districts. The Commission also asked for information regarding the types of materials to be used for such sidewalks or trails. Staff was directed to report back to the Commission at its earliest convenience. VIII. PLANNER'S REPORT None. IX. ADJOURNMENT MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Torjesen, seconded by Marhula. Chairman Bearman adjourned the meeting at 11 :05 p.m.