Planning Commission - 06/27/1983 AGENDA
Eden Prairie Planning Commission
Monday, June 27, 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
Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. May 23, 1983
B. June 6, 1983
III. MEMBERS REPORTS
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. HIGH TRAIL ESTATES 2ND ADDITION, by Countryside Investments,
Inc. Request for Zoning from Rural to R1-13.5 and
Preliminary Plat of 10 acres for 25 single family detached
. lots. Location: 6451 Duck Lake Road. A continued public
hearing.
B. CROSSROADS TOWNHOMES, by Baton Corporation. Request for
Preliminary Plat of 5.0 acres for seven (7) townhouse
buildings on six (6) lots. Location: South of Pioneer
Trail across from Prairie East 6th Addition. A public
hearing.
C. LEE DATA ACCESS, by Opus Corporation. Request for Pre-
liminary Plat of approximately 0.4 acres to provide
secondary access to Lee Data from W. 70th Street. Location:
West of W. 70th Street adjacent to Lee Data and Shady Oak
Industrial Park 5th Addition. A public hearing.
D. FLYING CLOUD BUSINESS CENTER, by Investment Services Group.
Request for Rezoning from Rural to I-2 Park of approximately
0.5 acres and Preliminary Plat of 2.9 acres, including the
vacation of McKinley Lane right-of-way and drainage
easements for office/warehouse uses. Location: Flying
Cloud Drive and McKinley Lane. A public hearing.
E. TARGET. Request for Site Plan Review for Retail Service
Use. Location: East of Highway #169, North of Prairie
Center Drive. A public meeting.
V. OLD BUSINESS
VI. NEW BUSINESS
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, June 27, 1983
City Hall , 7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Bearman, Virginia Gartner (7:40 p.m.), Robert
Hallett, Stan Johannes, Hakon Torjesen
MEMBERS ABSENT: Dennis Marhula, Ed Schuck
STAFF PRESENT Chris Enger, Director of Planning
Kate Karnas, Planning Secretary
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION:
Motion was made by Torjesen, seconded by Johannes, to approve the
agenda as submitted.
Motion carried--4-0-0
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. May 23, 1983, Minutes
MOTION:
Motion was made by Torjesen; seconded by Bearman, to approve the
minutes of the May 23, 1983, Planning Commission meeting.
Motion carried--4-0-0
B. June 6, 1983, Minutes
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett, to approve the
minutes of the June 6, 1983, Planning Commission meeting with the
following addition: Page 4, end of the first line on the page, add:
"Hallett inquired as to whether the park fees charged were reflected
based on the square footage of a structure. Planner Enger stated
that it was based on acreage, only. Hallett questioned whether it
was equitable to charge the same park fee for buildings of the same
acreage, but larger square footage."
Motion carried--4-0-1 (Johannes abstained)
III. MEMBERS REPORTS
None.
Planning Commission Minutes 2 June 27, 1983
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. HIGH TRAIL ESTATES •2ND ADDITION, by Countryside Investments,
Inc. Request for Zoning from Rural to R1-13.5 and
Preliminary Plat of 10 acres for 25 single family detached
lots. Location: 6451 Duck Lake Road. A continued public
hearing.
At its meeting of June 6, 1983, the Planning Commission acted to
continue the public hearing on this item, pending resolution of
several matters involving the project design.
Mr. Al Gray, RCM, proponent's engineers, reviewed the changes made
to the plan. They were as follows: 1) The number of lots was
reduced from 25 to 21 ; 2) Greater hydraulic capacity was designed
into the storm water pipes; 3) Craig Drive was shifted easterly to a
point where it would not be necessary to cut any trees for the
purposes of the road; 4) Less lots were now abutting the larger
existing lots to the northeast; 5) Development of the property to
the north had been accommodated via a relocated road, which provided
for more flexibility in design of lots on the northern property, and
which avoided the problems inherent with the drop in grade along the
north half of the northern property.
Torjesen asked whether it was the intention of the proponent to work
out an agreement to have the property to the north developed at the
same time as the High Trails Estates 2nd Addition, or to make
allowances for the development to the north at some time in the
future. Mr. Gray responded that their intention was to show the
ability of the land to the north to develop, based on the plans
presented for High Trails Estates 2nd Addition. He stated that the
proponent was willing to leave one lot undevelopab.le until the
property to the north developed, at which time the undevelopable lot
would have access. Planner Enger stated that physically, the plan
was satisfactory to both parties, but that financial details had not
yet been worked out.
Mr. Leissner, Countryside Investments, stated that, as proponents,
they felt obligated to the plan under review; however, if for some
reason the arrangements could not be made, they would return to the
Planning Commission for review and recommendation.
Planner Enger summarized the Staff Report of June 24, 1983,
regarding the project.
Chairman Bearman asked for comments and questions from members of
the audience.
Dennis Howard, 6430 Undestad, stated that he was still concerned
about the density of the lots as they abutted his property to the
northeast . of this project. He stated that, even though proponent
has increased the depth of the lots by 100 ft., he still did not
feel it was appropriate for the development to propose two lots
abutting his one lot.
Planning Commission Minutes 3 June 27, 1983
It was pointed out to Mr. Howard that the front yard setback for
homes in that R1-13.5 zoning district was 30 ft. Mr. Howard asked
if there were any requirements that the owners build that close to
the road, or whether they could build further back on the lots.
Planner Enger stated that there were no requirements.
Bob Borosch, 6470 Undestad, asked what the change had been to the
previous plans for the swamp area. Mr. Gray explained that the
encroachment into the swamp area had been decreased to less than
half of what it had been under the previous plan. Mr. Borosch asked
who would be responsible if there were storm water problems in the
future. It was explained to Mr. Borosch that it would be a
situational consideration, as storm water problems could result from
a multitude of sources for this area. However, the current plan
should aid in alleviation of the existing storm water problems in
the area.
MOTION 1 :
Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Gartner, to close the public
hearing, or continue.
Motion carried--5-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Gartner, to recommend to the
City Council approval of the request for zoning from Rural to Rl-
13.5 for High Trail Estates 2nd Addition by Countryside Investments,
based on revised plans dated May, 1983, and June 14, 1983, and
subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports of June 3, 1983,
and June 24, 1983.
Motion carried--5-0-0
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Gartner, to recommend to the
City Council approval of the request for preliminary plat of 10
acres for 25 single family detached lots for High Trails Estates 2nd
Addition by Countryside Investments, based on revised plans dated
May, 1983, and June 14, 1983, and subject to the recommendations of
the Staff Reports of June 3, 1983, and June 24, 1983.
Motion carried--5-0-0
B. CROSSROADS TOWNHOMES, by Baton Corporation. Request for
Preliminary Plat of 5.0 acres for seven (7) townhouse
buildings on six (6) lots. Location: South of Pioneer
Trail across from Prairie East 6th Addition. A public
hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes 4 June 27, 1983
The Commission reviewed the request for preliminar
y y platting of the
Crossroads townhome project, which had previously been reviewed by
the Planning Commission as part of the Bluffs East Planned Unit
Development. At that time, platting was not part of the request for
this portion of the Planned Unit Development. For purposes of ease
of financing, the proponent was now requesting platting of the
property.
The Commission , acknowledged receipt of a letter from Mr. Robert
McDonald, property owner immediately to the west of the project, and
asked that it be part of the record of the meeting. Mr. McDonald's
concerns centered around access to his property, both by roads and
utilities for any future development of his land and his father's
land, directly adjacent to the west of his property.
Chairman Bearman stated that he had had a phone conversation with
Mr. McDonald prior to the meeting during which they had discussed
the Bluffs East project, and, in particular, the Crossroads
Townhomes portion of the proposal.
Chairman Bearman noted that Mr. McDonald had made a request for
copies of Planning Commission and Council minutes, which he had not
yet received. He asked Staff to check into this and to make certain
that all pertinent minutes were sent to him.
Mr. McDonald's greatest concerns involved the storm sewer for the
area as it would affect his property, and any flexibility which may
be lost by virtue of access not being planned from the Crossroads
project to his and his father's property.
Torjesen asked whether better access would be available to the
McDonald property via an east/west road. Planner Enger stated that
it would not, and suggested that better access would be obtained
from Bennett Place or Blossom Road for the McDonald properties.
Torjesen asked if the situation arose where Blossom Road was closed
off, if it would be possible or necessary to obtain access from the
Crossroads project. Planner Enger stated that topography of the
area would make it difficult, if not impossible to do so.
Hallett asked if the property could be developed as multiple.
Chairman Bearman stated that, in his conversation with Mr. McDonald,
he was told that the McDonald's were uncertain as to how they wanted
to develop the land, from one single family home on a large lot to
multiple residential. Planner Enger noted that the land surrounding
the McDonald property to the north, south, and west, was all guided
as low density residential, which would indicate single family
residential development, unless the Comprehensive Guide Plan were to
be amended.
Is Hallett stated that he felt it was necessary to deal with the
Crossroads project on its merits, and, at the time of proposed
development of the McDonald property(ies), to deal with their
proposals on their own merits.
Planning Commission Minutes 5 June 27, 1983
• MOTION 1 :
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett, to close the public
hearing.
Motion carried--5-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett, to recommend to the
City Council approval of the preliminary plat of the Crossroads
Townhomes by Baton Corporation, based on plans dated May 18, 1983,
and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report of June 24,
1983.
Motion carried--5-0-0
C. LEE DATA ACCESS, by Opus Corporation. Request for Pre-
liminary Plat of approximately 0.4 acres to provide
secondary access to Lee Data from W. 70th Street. Location:
West of W. 70th Street adjacent to Lee Data and Shady Oak
Industrial Park 5th Addition. A public hearing.
Michelle Foster, Opus Corporation, presented the request on behalf
iof the proponents. She stated that, at the time of the original
request for the Lee Data project, the City had requested that a
secondary access to W. 70th Street be established. Upon purchase of
the property, and attempt to file the ownership at Hennepin County,
proponents were told that they would have to file the property as a
Registered Land Survey. Ms. Foster stated that the Opus Corporation
would be the owner of both parcels A and B as shown in the exhibits,
and that their intentions were to dedicate the road to the City in
the future.
Staff explained that the Registered Land Survey process only
required a proceeding similar to that of a preliminary plat through
the City, but that a final plat process was not necessary.
Chairman Bearman asked for comments and questions from members of
the audience. There were none.
MOTION 1 :
Motion was made by Torjesen, seconded by Gartner, to close the
public hearing.
Motion carried--5-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Torjesen, seconded by Gartner, to recommend to
the City Council approval of the Registered Land Survey (RLS) of
Opus Corporation/Lee Data, for access purposes to the Lee Data site,
based on plans dated February 3, 1983, the Registered Land Survey,
Planning Commission Minutes 6 June 27, 1983
• as shown to the Planning Commission and marked Exhibit A, and
subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated June 24,
1983.
D. FLYING CLOUD BUSINESS CENTER, by Investment Services Group.
Request for Rezoning from Rural to I-2 Park of approximately
0.5 acres and Preliminary Plat of 2.9 acres, including the
vacation of McKinley Lane right-of-way and drainage
easements for office/warehouse uses. Location: Flying
Cloud Drive and McKinley Lane. A public hearing.
Mr. Tony Feffer, Investment Services Group, presented the request of
proponent for development of industrial property to the Commission.
Staff explained that the property requested to be rezoned was
previously City-owned land, which had been purchased by proponent.
Hallett asked how the City had obtained the land and why they would
not want to maintain ownership. Planner Enger explained that the
property was deeded to the City by the State of Minnesota as excess
right-of-way in that area. The City has no plans, nor need for the
land.
Torjesen asked how the frontage road was affected by this property.
Staff explained that it formed a 90 degree intersection with Shady
Oak Road at the northeast area of the property.
Torjesen inquired as to whether the 21 inch oak tree on the site
could be saved. Staff stated that it would be saved.
Torjesen questioned the site coverage of the project. Planner Enger
stated that the project was under the Code maximums, at about 20%
coverage. The Code allowed up to 30% coverage.
Torjesen asked if truck loading would be possible from Shady Oak
Road. Staff explained that it was not planned this way due to the
high visibility from this read. Car parking was planned in this
area, which could be screened from the public road.
Torjesen asked why proponent was widening the right-of-way of the
frontage road. Mr. Feffer responded that it was a requirement of
the City at the time of development of the adjacent properties to
any frontage road that the road be widened and the berming be
completed.
Chairman Bearman asked for questions and comments from members of
the audience. There were none.
MOTION 1 :
• Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett, to close the public
hearing.
Motion carried--5-0-0
Planning Commission Minutes 7 June 27, 1983
•
MOTION 2•
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett,to recommend to the
City Council approval of the request for zoning from Rural to I-2
Park of approximately 0.5 acres for office/warehouse uses, for
Investment Services Group for the Flying Cloud Business Center,
based on plans dated June 8, 1983, and subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated June 24, 1983.
Motion carried--5-0-0
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett, to recommend to the
City Council approval of the request for preliminary plat of 2.9
acres for office/warehouse uses, including vacation of McKinley Lane
right-of-way and drainage easements, for Investment Services Group
for the Flying. Cloud Business Center, based on plans dated June 8,
1983, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated
June 24, 1983.
Motion carried--5-0-0
E. TARGET. Request for Site Plan Review for Retail Service
Use. Location: East of Highway #169, North of Prairie
Center Drive. A public meeting.
Representatives of Homart, Eden Prairie Center owners, Target,
proponents, Suburban Engineering, proponents engineers, and
proponent's architects were present to review the request with the
Commission. Joe Linnae, Homart Devlopment Corporation, stated that
the center would like to open the Target store in October, 1984.
Dale Hamilton, Suburban Engineering, proponent's engineers, stated
that the stacking distance to the entry of the Center from Highway
#169 would be increased with the development of the project in order
to alleviate traffic problems.
Bert Schacter, Target architect, asked for consideration of the
proposed limestone base aggregate for an exterior finish, as opposed
to brick, as requested among the Staff Report conditions. Mr.
Schacter also addressed screening of the mechanical units shown on
the top of the structure. He pointed out that, due to the mass of
the structure, as well as its elevation, and the location of the
mechanical units in the center of the structure, it would be
difficult to see the mechanical units from any elevation from a road
or differing land use.
Mr. Schacter then discussed the screening of the tire, battery, and
accessory area (TBA), the garden center, and the truck docking area,
all of which faced the Highway #169 frontage of the property. He
showed pictures of other Target stores and the treatment of those
areas at the other locations. Mr. Schacter pointed out that
visibility of these areas was important to the Target stores in
Planning Commission Minutes 8 June 27, 1983
• order to promote retail business of these services.
It was pointed out that the skywalk proposed between Target and the
remainder of the Center was to be the responsibility of the Homart
Development corporation.
Hallett asked if there were any guidelines in the City Code dealing
with skywalks. Staff responded that there were not.
Planning Staff expressed concern for the lack of screening of the
TBA area. Based on standards of the landscape ordinance, and
standards set by the Eden Prairie Center with their existing
buildings and landscaping, the proposed plan was considered to be
inadequate. Staff also expressed concern for other site plan
features, including: 1) the building "turning its back" to the
parking area to the south; 2) the lack of planting/screening
material in front of the building; 3) consistency of the exterior
materials with those of the existing buildings of the Center; 4)
pedestrian access to the property from the west side of Highway
#169; 5) adequacy of parking lot and pedestrian lighting on the
site.
Gartner asked how the building was connected to the Center mall . It
was explained that there was an 80 ft. separation between the Target
• building and the remainder of the mall, which would be spanned by
skywalk at the upper level of the mall.
Torjesen stated that he was concerned that this building be
especially well designed and well landscaped and screened since it
was located in such a visible location within the City and within
the Eden Prairie Center.
Torjesen questioned the concept of a one-story building in typically
two-story shopping malls. Mr. Linnae stated that the ideas of two-
story malls had changed. Merchandising of the type done by Target
had been proven successful in other parts of the country recently.
Mr. Hamilton, proponent's engineer, stated that it would cost nearly
triple the amount of the grading to include a basement under the
existing Target store.
Chairman Bearman stated that he agreed with the need for screening
of the TBA area, truck dock, and garden center. Hallett stated that
he agreed, also.
Hallett added that he felt strongly that pedestrian links be made to
access the Center in the best possible manner.
Torjesen stated that he felt the existing landscaping around the
Eden Prairie Center would be a good indication of the level of
landscaping and screening expected for the Target store.
Chairman Bearman stated that he felt brick would be an important
factor to maintain the consistency of appearance and treatment of
the exteriors of the mall buildings.
Planning Commission Minutes 9 June 27, 1983
• Johannes stated that he felt the TBA area, truck dock, and garden
center needed more landscaping and - screening than proposed by
proponent. He suggested that proponents work with Staff to create a
plan that would be more appropriate and representative of the
Center.
Dick Brooks, Target, stated that he was concerned that these areas
not be "double screened," or screened both at the street and at the
building. The Commission concurred that this would not be
necessary, but that one form of adequate screening, representative
of the existing landscaping and screening of the Center, would be
required.
In further discussion of the landscaping and screening which existed
in the Center, and which was expected of the additional uses of the
Center, it was pointed out that the Sears TBA had perhaps set a
precedent for screening of such areas by the manner in which they
had screened this use from vision. Their screening consisted of a
"half-wall" tall enough to block vehicles from view of the public.
Also, Sears had used a similar method of screening their truck dock
area, building a wall tall enough to block trucks from view of the
public, but still providing adequate access and maneuvering space
for their needs. Staff showed slides of other garden centers at
other metropolitan Target stores which had used a similar screening
. device for this use, as well.
Johannes stated that his main concern was the sight lines from
Highway #169 from this area.
It was the consensus of the Commission that the site construction
could proceed, but that the landscaping and screening should return
to the Commission for further review. Commissioners reviewed the
Staff recommended conditions of approval with the proponents,
pointing out their concerns for various items as follows:
Regarding a brick exterior--the Commissioners generally
preferred brick as an exterior material, but were willing to
consider other materials upon presentation by the proponent.
Regarding screening of the mechanical equipment--the
Commissioners asked for additional sight line cross sections
from proponent, showing that the mechanical equipment was
not visible from any direction.
Regarding landscaping and screening of the Target store--the
Commissioners agreed that this was the single most important
item (covered by recommendations 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the Staff
Report) to be dealt with at the next meeting by proponent.
More information and stronger treatment, more consistent
with the existing Eden Prairie Center landscaping and
screening treatment, was necessary, especially due to the
fact that the store would be so visible from Highway #169.
Commissioners concurred that it would be up to proponent to
prove that "double screening" would not be necessary along
Planning Commission Minutes 10 June 27, 1983
• the road and at the building.
Regarding storage of the carts--the Commissioners concurred
that the methods discussed and proposed by proponent were
adequate.
Regarding the pedestrian access--the Commissioners concurred
that it was most important that adequate access be provided
for crossing of Highway #169. Pedestrian access, as shown
on other portions of the plan, were agreed to be adequate.
Regarding signage--the Commissioners concurred that the
proposed plan was adequate and that no additional signage
should be allowed without review.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Torjesen, seconded by Hallett, to recommend to
the City Council approval of the request of Target to begin site
construction, with the exception of landscaping, based on plans
submitted and dated June, 1983. Further, said approval shall be
subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report of June 24, 1983
as further elaborated upon and discussed at the Planning Commission
meeting of June 27, 1983, with the addition of recommendation #10:
• Additional detail be provided regarding cart storage on-site. Said
approval shall also be subject to further review of the landscaping
and screening by the Planning Commission prior to approval of the
overall site plan by the City Council.
Motion carried--5-0-0
V. OLD BUSINESS
Old Farm Tiles
The Commission discussed the problems inherent with old farm tiles,
the whereabouts of which were unknown, and the difficulties of
locating them. In other cities, much damage had been caused by
these tiles, which often cost a great deal of time and money to
correct.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Torjesen, seconded by Gartner, to contact the
Eden Prairie Historical Society, asking them to alert the older
residents of the area regarding the dangers of the old farm tiles to
the community, and requesting the formation of a volunteer committee
to prepare a map of known farm tiles in the community for future use
by the City Staff in evaluation of projects and mitigation of the
problems farm tiles are known to cause, prior to development and
construction in these areas.
Motion carried--5-0-0
Planning Commission Minutes 11 June 27, 1983
VI. NEW BUSINESS
None.
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
None.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Hallett, seconded by Johannes.
Chairman Bearman adjourned the meeting at 12:30 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kate Karnas
Planning Secretary