Planning Commission - 01/09/1984 AGENDA
Monday, January 9, 1984
8100 School Road
School District Board Room
7:30 p.m.
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman William Bearman, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett,
Stan Johannes, Dennis Marhula, Ed Schuck, Hakon Torjesen
STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner
Kate Karnas, Recording Secretary
Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
III. MINUTES
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. PRIMETECH, by Prime Development and M R Properties. Request
for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment for a twenty
(20) acre office park, Planned Unit Development District
Review and Zoning District Change from Rural to Office, with
variances, and Preliminary Plat of six acres for four
buildings to be known as Primetech Park, in the City West
Planned Unit Development. Location: West of Highway
169/212, north of Shady Oak Road. A continued public
hearing.
B. VILLAGE GREENS, by Kerr Companies. Request for Site Plan
Zoning Amendment for 138 condominium units on 12.84 acres.
Location: Northwest quadrant of Valley View Road and Golf
View Drive. A public meeting.
C. EDEN GLEN 4TH ADDITION, by Undestad Investments. Request
for Zoning from Rural to Commercial Regional Service on 3.36
acres for a bank building and Preliminary Plat of 4.99 acres
into two lots. Location: Northeast quadrant of Singletree
Lane and Glen Lane. A public hearing.
VI. OLD BUSINESS
VII. NEW BUSINESS
VIII. PLANNER'S REPORT
IX. ADJOURNMENT
MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, January 9, 1984
8100 School Road
School District Board Room
7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman William Bearman, Virginia Gartner, Stan Johannes,
Dennis Marhula
MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert Hallett, Hakon Torjesen
STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner
Kate Karnas, Recording Secretary
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION•
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Gartner, to adopt the agenda
as presented.
Motion carried--5-0-0
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
None.
III. MINUTES
A. Minutes of November 14, 1983 Meetin
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Marhula, to adopt the
minutes of the November 14, 1983, meeting as printed.
Motion carried--5-0-0
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. PRIMETECH, by Prime Development and M R Properties. Request
for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment for a twenty
(20) acre office park, Planned Unit Development District
Review and Zoning District Change from Rural to Office, with
variances, and Preliminary Plat of six acres for four
buildings to be known as Primetech Park, in the City West
Planned Unit Development. Location: West of Highway
It 169/212, north of Shady Oak Road. A continued public
hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes 2 January 9, 1984
At its meeting of December 12, 1983, the Planning Commission had
continued the public hearing for the Planned Unit Development
Concept Amendment of this project. At this time, additional
requests were being made. Mr. Ron Erickson, Korsunsky, Krank,
Erickson, architects for proponent, reviewed the revisions to the
Concept Plan and the additional requests.
Mr. Erickson stated that the buildings were intended to be owner-
occupied, not leased. He gave brief descriptions of the building
owners for the first phase of the development, including, Lectech, a
firm dealing with high-tech medical accessories, Scamp, a computer
software and hardware company, and an office building.
Regarding the parking arrangements for the buildings, Mr. Erickson
stated that he would like the opportunity to work with Staff to
settle on locations which would be more acceptable. He stated that
he felt it was a situation that could be easily mitigated. Mr.
Erickson asked for consideration of two feet less at the perimeter
of the parking lot for the Lectech building, however.
Mr. Erickson added that, as with Phase I, the subsequent phases of
the development would be brought in for Commission and Council
review at such time as the occupants were known.
Planner Enger reviewed the concerns of the Commission from the
December 12, 1983, meeting, and reviewed the recommendations of the
Staff Report of January 6, 1984. He pointed out that the Commission
had been concerned about the boundary lines of the project as they
affected the designated High Density Residential site to the north.
Planner Enger stated that this had been resolved and that additional
work would be done to provide a possible shared access between the
north phase of the Primetech development and the High Density
Residential site.
Planner Enger reported that the Commission had expressed concern
regarding the percentage of office space within the structures,
versus, the percentage of warehouse/assembly space. At the
previous meeting, Mr. Erickson stated that 65% would be an
appropriate amount of minimum office space. This plan met that
requirement, with the exception of the Lectech building.
The Commission had also expressed concern that the looped road
through the site be a public road, rather than private. Proponents
were still requesting a private road through the site.
Planner Enger stated that Staff would be willing to work with the
proponent to relocate parking areas on the site, adding that it
would be important not to diminish the width of the parking lot for
the reason of snow storage. Also, a deed restriction from Anderson
Development, Inc., would be required regarding limitation of median
cuts to the property for future additions of the Primetech
development and adjacent portions of the overall City West Planned
Unit Development.
Planning Commission Minutes 3 January 9, 1984
Chairman Bearman asked why the private looped road had not been
proposed as a public road. Planner Enger stated that this would
require meeting front yard setbacks for all of the buildings.
Chairman Bearman expressed concern for maintenance of a private
road. Planner Enger stated that, in situations such as this, snow
removal became a much more intensive activity. Snow would likely be
removed from the site to remote locations. Chairman Bearman asked
if there would be association documents available to make the
building owners responsible for such maintenance. Mr. Chuck
Tuchfarber, proponent, stated that there would.
Chairman Bearman asked if, other than for snow removal purposes, the
private street met the public road standards. Staff responded that
City width and curbing standards were requested due to the amount of
traffic this private road would be handling, which would be equal to
a City street.
Chairman Bearman asked what types of uses would be allowed to occupy
the Lectech building in the event that the building would be vacated
by Lectech. He stated that he was concerned about other types of
industrial uses being allowed to occupy the structure. Staff
responded that there were restrictions in the association documents
which covered this. Mr. Tuchfarber stated that the restrictions in
the association documents included a provision against any polluting
type of industrial use and read a list of items which were allowed
from the proposed association documents.
Chairman Bearman asked where the services for the number of
employees generated by this development would be located. Planner
Enger responded that ADI, developers of the City West project, were
working on plans for the amenities for the area, including
restaurants and other service uses complimentary to such a
development. Mr. Tuchfarber stated that there may be a restaurant
in subsequent phases of the Primetech development.
Marhula asked if the entire development would be office condominiums
such as shown for the first phase. Mr. Erickson responded that it
would be much like the first phase. Marhula asked if the ownership
would be typical association ownership with the association members
owning the buildings and the land under them. Mr. Erickson stated
that they would be responsible for their respective parking areas as
well.
Chairman Bearman asked if the City Council had offered any direction
as to private roads used by the public. Staff responded that they
had not as yet. Chairman Bearman asked if the association would be
required to post a bond with the City in the event of the City being
required to handle any maintenance on the site. Staff stated that
this had not been done, but that it could be handled in the
developer's agreement for the property. Staff added that should the
association default, the City would take over maintenance and assess
the costs back to the benefitting properties.
Planning Commission Minutes 4 January 9, 1984
Chairman Bearman asked for questions and comments from members of
the audience. There were none.
MOTION 1 :
Motion was made by Schuck, seconded by Marhula, to close the public
hearing.
Motion carried--5-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Schuck, seconded by Marhula, to recommend to the
City Council approval of the Planned Unit Development Concept
Amendment to the City West Planned .Unit Development for Prime
Development for a 20-acre office park, per plans and written
materials dated December 19, 1983, and January 6, 1984, subject to
the recommendations of the Staff Report of January 6, 1984, with the
following changes to the recommendations of the Staff Report: To
Item #2 of the recommendations, add: "A deed restriction from the
property owner shall be prepared and approved by the City to
accomplish the access control;" and, add the following items: #15.
The association documents shall be reviewed by the City Attorney for
confirmation of the maintenance of the private areas and for
confirmation regarding the types of uses allowable on the proposed
I-2 Park lot in the event of the known owner vacating the property;
and #16. An assessment agreement shall be prepared to deal with the
potential of the City being required to take over the maintenance of
the private areas, particularly the private road maintenance.
Motion carried--5-0-0
Mr. Erickson asked if the Commission would consider allowing the 65%
of office space figure as a guideline, as opposed to a rigid figure.
He stated that by making it part of the deed restrictions, financing
of the project may be a difficulty. Staff responded that it was
intended as a guideline to be used for the Planned Unit Development,
not necessarily a strict and rigid figure. Johannes stated that he
agreed with use of the 65% of office space figure as a guideline,
adding that if the structure fits the development, it would not be a
major consideration if the percentage of office was not exactly 65%.
He emphasized that the buildings and usages must fit the
development, however.
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Schuck, seconded by Marhula, to recommend to the
City Council approval of the request of Prime Development for
Planned Unit District Review and Zoning from Rural to Office and I-2
Park for the Primetech Office Park, based on plans and written
materials dated December 19, 1983, and January 6, 1984, subject to
the recommendations of the Staff Report of January 6, 1984, with the
following changes to the recommendations of the Staff Report: To
Item #2 of the recommendations, add: "A deed restriction from the
Planning Commission Minutes 5 January 9, 1984
owner shall be property prepared and approved by the City to
accomplish the access control ;" and add the following items: Item
#15. The association documents shall be reviewed by the City
Attorney for confirmation regarding the types of uses allowable on
the proposed I-2 Park lot in the event of the known owner vacating
the property; and, Item #16. An assessment agreement shall be
prepared to deal with the potential of the City being required to
take over the maintenance of the private areas, particularly the
private road maintenance.
Motion carried--5-0-0
MOTION 4:
Motion was made by Schuck, seconded by Marhula, to recommend to the
City Council approval of the request of Prime Development for
Preliminary Plat of approximately six acres into four lots for the
Primetech Office Park, Phase I, based on plans and written materials
dated December 19, 1983, and January 6, 1984, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report of January 6, 1984, with the
following changes to the recommendations of the Staff Report: To
Item #2 of the recommendations, add: A deed restriction from the
property owner shall be prepared and approved by the City to
accomplish the access control ; and add the following items: #15.
The association documents shall be reviewed by the City Attorney for
confirmation regarding the types of uses allowable on the proposed
I-2 Park lot in the event of the known owner vacating the property;
and #16. An assessment agreement shall be prepared to deal with the
potential of the City being required to take over the maintenance of
the private areas, particularly the private road maintenance.
Motion carried--5-0-0
B. VILLAGE GREENS, by Kerr Companies. Request for Site Plan
Zoning Amendment for 138 condominium units on 12.84 acres.
Location: Northwest quadrant of Valley View Road and Golf
View Drive. A public meeting.
Mr. Rod Markin, and Mr. Bob Martinson, the Kerr Companies, reviewed
the request with the Commission, explaining the history of the
proposals on the site and the site and proposed development
features.
Mr. Martinson stated that the units would be sold in the range of
$69,500-$77,000, depending upon the unit chosen. He added that,
according to the traffic study prepared by BRW, the impact upon the
roads in the vicinity would be approximately 35% less than the
previously approved 212 apartments units for the site. Mr.
Martinson stated that, according to people in attendance at a
neighborhood meeting held by the developer, the Golf View Drive
intersection with Valley View Road was a dangerous intersection.
The other matter of concern was stated as the sight distance from
the intersection of the proposed project west along Valley View
Road.
Planning Commission Minutes 6 January 9, 1984
Staff reviewed the recommendations of the Staff Report regarding the
project, pointing out that, due to the design of the site, many
areas of the project were "tight" causing parking, traffic, and
visual problems.
Marhula asked if a plat would be required at some time in the future
for this site. Mr. Martinson stated that, based on discussions with
Staff, a plat would be necessary and the developer would be
returning to the Commission at a later date with that request.
Chairman Bearman stated that he felt it was important that public
roads be built within this site due to its size. Marhula stated
that he concurred.
Chairman Bearman asked for questions and comments from members of
the audience. There were none.
Marhula noted that there were several areas where parking spaces
were located behind garages and where garages located near other
garages would create the potential for blocking of cars into areas.
He suggested that developer review these locations and try to
relocate the parking spaces to avoid blocking a car into a space or
garage.
The Commission expressed concern about the number of units with
views of large parking areas and the fact that only single car
garages were available to the future tenants of the structures. The
Commission asked the developer to consider redesign to rectify these
situations.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Gartner, to continue the
public hearing and return the materials to the proponent for
revision per the recommendations of the Staff Report of January 6,
1984, and the recommendations of the Planning Commission from the
January 9, 1984, meeting.
Motion carried--5-0-0
C. EDEN GLEN 4TH ADDITION, by Undestad Investments. Request
for Zoning from Rural to Commercial Regional Service on 3.36
acres for a bank building and Preliminary Plat of 4.99 acres
into two lots. Location: Northeast quadrant of Singletree
Lane and Glen Lane. A public hearing.
Mr. Curly Roberts, Roberts Architects, representing the proponent,
reviewed the request with the Commission, pointing out the
significant site and design features.
Staff reviewed the recommendations of the Staff Report for the
Planning Commission Minutes 7 January 9, 1984
project.
Marhula asked if the use was known for the adjacent lot to the north
at this time. Mr. Ralph Warner stated that the intention was to
follow the approved uses of the Eden Glen Planned Unit Development
and to build a Class I restaurant on this site.
Marhula asked if the south entrance to the site was necessary,
suggesting that it would be better to eliminate it, if possible.
Mr. Roberts stated that this could be done.
Mr. Tim Cashan, Undestad Investments, stated that the bank intended
for the building would be the 1st State Bank of Eden Prairie, a
current Eden Prairie business resident.
Chairman Bearman asked for questions and comments from members of
the audience. There were none.
MOTION 1 •
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Schuck, to close the public
hearing.
Motion carried--5-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Johannes, to recommend to
the City Council approval of the request of Undestad Investments for
Zoning District Change from Rural to Commercial Regional Service of
3.36 acres for a bank building, based on plans dated December 9, 20,
and 22, 1983, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report of
January 6, 1984, and the additional recommendation to eliminate the
south entrance to the site.
Motion carried--5-0-0
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Johannes, to recommend to
the City Council approval of the request of Undestad Investments for
Preliminary Plat of 4.99 acres into two lots for Eden Glen 4th
Addition based on plans dated December 9, 20, and 22, 1983, subject
to the recommendations of the Staff Report of January 6, 1984, and
the additional recommendation to eliminate the south entrance to the
site.
Motion carried--5-0-0
VI. OLD BUSINESS
None.
Planning Commission Minutes 8 January 9, 1984
VII. NEW BUSINESS
None.
VIII. PLANNER'S REPORT
None.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Marhula, seconded by Schuck.
Chairman Bearman adjourned the meeting at 11 :00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
: ll
Kate Karnas
Recording Secretary