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.