Loading...
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