Loading...
Planning Commission - 02/13/1984 AGENDA Monday, February 13, 1984 School Board Meeting Room 8100 School Road 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 A. January 9, 1984, Meeting Minutes B. January 23, 1984, Meeting Minutes IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. VALLEY VIEW MANOR HOMES, by Sunrise Properties. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 and Preliminary Plat of 20 acres for 120 units in 15 condominium buildings. Location: North of Valley View Road, 1/4 mile East of Mitchell Road. A continued public hearing. B. WILSON RIDGE, by Wilson Ridge Joint Venture. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 60.85 acres; Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Office to Industrial for 11 .6 acres; Planned Unit Development District Review and Zoning District Change from Commercial Regional to I-2 Park, with variances, for 11.6 acres and from Commercial Regional to Office, with variances, for 18.64 acres; and Preliminary Plat of 60.85 acres for three lots and four outlots Location: North of Valley View Road and East of Highway #169. A public hearing. C. EDENVALE APARTMENTS 2ND ADDITION, by Bar-ett Construction Co./Edenvale Apartments Partnership. Request for Compre- hensive Guide Plan Amendment from Medium to High Density Residential and Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-2.5 for 4.98 acres for a 70-unit apartment building. Location: Northeast Quadrant of Baker Road and Valley View Road. A public hearing. (over) AGENDA February 13, 1984 Page 2 D. KINDER CARE LEARNING CENTER. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to Commercial Regional Service and Preliminary Plat of 0.71 acre for a Day Care Facility. Location: Northeast quadrant of Singletree Lane and Glen Lane. A public hearing. V. OLD BUSINESS VI. NEW BUSINESS VII. PLANNER'S REPORT VIII. ADJOURNMENT MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, February 13, 1984 School Board Meeting Room 8100 School Road 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chairman Hakon Torjesen (7:50), Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett, Stan Johannes, Ed Schuck MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairman William Bearman, Dennis Marhula STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner; Kate Karnas, Recording Secretary Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Motion was made by Schuck, seconded by Hallett, to adopt the agenda as printed. Motion carried--4-0-0 II. MEMBERS REPORTS None. III. MINUTES MOTION: Motion was made Schuck, seconded by Hallett, to approve the minutes of the January 9, 1984, Planning Commission meeting as printed. Motion carried--4-0-0 MOTION: Motion was made by Schuck, seconded by Johannes, to approve the minutes of the January 23, 1984, Planning Commission meeting as printed. Motion carried--4-0-0 IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. VALLEY VIEW MANOR HOMES, by Sunrise Properties. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 and Preliminary Planning Commission Minutes 2 February 13, 1984 Plat of 20 acres for 120 units in 15 condominium buildings. Location: North of Valley View Road, 1/4 mile East of Mitchell Road. A continued public hearing. Staff reported that the proponent was requesting 'additional time to complete plan changes for the site, based on the Commission concerns of the January 23, 1984, meeting and the recommendations of the Staff Report of January 20, 1984. At this time, the proponent requested postponement to the February 27, 1984, meeting. MOTION• Motion was made by Johannes, seconded by Hallett, to continue the public hearing to the February 27, 1984, Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried--4-0-0 (Acting Chairman Torjesen arrived at 7:50 p.m.) B. WILSON RIDGE, by Wilson Ridge Joint Venture. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 60.85 acres; Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Office to Industrial for 11 .6 acres; Planned Unit Development District Review and Zoning District Change from Commercial Regional to I-2 Park, with variances, for 11 .6 acres and from Commercial Regional to Office, with variances, for 18.64 acres; and Preliminary Plat of 60.85 acres for three lots and four outlots Location: North of Valley View Road and East of Highway #169. A public hearing. Mr. Wallace Hustad, representing the Wilson Ridge Joint Venture, reviewed the history of the development proposals on the site. He explained the impact of extensive mining operations on the property and discussed difficulties encountered by the soil borings in various locations. Mr. Hustad stated that it was proponent's intent to work from the industrial use of Lee Data to the north into an office type use on the south with the business campus of Wilson Learning Center, thereby creating a mixed use Planned Unit Development. Mr. Darrell Anderson, proponent's architect, reviewed the site design characteristics, landscaping, preservation areas, building elevations, etc. Mr. Dennis Doyle, Welsh Construction Company, one of the proponents, stated that, of the 60+ acres, only 30 acres would be developed. He pointed out that jogging/walking trails were part of the plan, with proposal for a picnic area and volleyball courts. Mr. Doyle noted that there were several corporate headquarters in the vicinity, including Lee Data, Super Value, Gelco, etc., and now Wilson Learning Center with this proposal . He stated that he felt it would Planning Commission Minutes 3 February 13, 1984 Is be important to have a mix of the smaller uses in order for the larger corporate uses and the smaller uses to service each other. Mr. Doyle suggested that this Planned Unit Development would be the location for that mix of uses. Mr. Doyle stated that, after discussion with the Staff, it had been determined that more work would be done on the site plan to mitigate some of the concerns listed in the Staff Report. Also, based on a series of soil tests made in the area, the plans would require revision to avoid the bad soils with the buildings and road. Therefore, an amended plan was necessary. Planner Enger reviewed the conclusions of the Staff Report of February 10, 1984, with the Commission. After recent discussions with the proponents, Staff had emphasized the need for reconfiguration of the buildings proposed for the office/warehouse uses, as well as the desirability of elimination of the "double" loading area. He pointed out that some of the current difficulties of the site resulted from the amount of square footage of structures proposed. Planner Enger referred to the previously approved Thorn Creek Place Planned Unit Development which supported a total of 300,000 sq. ft. of structure, while the current proposal showed 342,000 sq. ft. of structure in the first phase alone. With respect to the road, Staff explained that the Thorn Creek proposal had placed the road further east on the site, at the toe of the slope. In the current location proposed by Wilson Ridge, the concern was for the amount of retaining walls necessary for construction in this location. That amount of retaining wall was not necessary with either of the previous proposals. Parking concerns were noted, involving a lack of necessary spaces to meet Code requirements for the uses proposed. If expansion was planned of any of the uses, it was suggested by Staff that the number of parking spaces also be taken into consideration for such expansions so that proof of parking could be shown on the site. Planner Enger stated that these were issues which must be addressed in the new plans by the Wilson Ridge Joint Venture. Acting Chairman Torjesen stated that he was concerned about a lack of supportive information for the Guide Plan Change requested for the project. Schuck stated that the Wilson Learning site appeared to fit well on the site and to be appropriate for this area. Hallett asked if the tree inventory would be necessary in all areas of the site. Planner Enger responded that it would be in those areas where trees would be removed, but not necessarily for the entire site. He stated that in some areas, the trees were at least 18 inches in diameter, in which case the City would have concerns about their removal. Planning Commission Minutes 4 February 13, 1984 Johannes stated that he was supportive of the proposed industrial use on the site and agreed with the need for cross-fertilization of uses within an area such as this. He added that he agreed with Schuck regarding the Wilson Learning site and its suitability for the area. Acting Chairman Torjesen asked for comments and questions from members of the audience. Mr. Richard Enblom, 10610 Valley View Road, stated that he was basically satisfied with two of the three exposures of the site to his property, which was located immediately east of the proposal. The trees in these areas were proposed to remain and would provide adequate buffer on the south and west sides of his property. Mr. Enblom expressed concern for the development of Outlot C as its final use was not yet known. He stated he would reserve judgment until a plan was final. Mr. Enblom added that some of the trees in the area were as large as 30 inches in diameter, particularly on the central knoll of the site. Regarding Valley View Road, Mr. Enblom pointed out that utilities and right-of-way were restricted in the area which his family had previously dedicated for park. He pointed out that this may affect the traffic patterns for the future, as well as utility extension and that the proponent should keep this in mind for the future. Ms. Clara Heath, 7665 Smetana Lane, stated that she was concerned about the grading of the southeast knoll of the site and asked that as little as possible be done to change its character. She also expressed concern about potential storm water run-off from the parking areas around the Wilson Learning site as it may affect her property. Mr. Greg Struve, Welsh Corporation engineer, explained the design of the storm water system and showed how the drainage had been designed to drain away from her property. Mr. Doyle added that, based on the soils information they had recently received, it may not be possible to move the road much further to the west. However, they would inform the City of the results. Hallett and Gartner stated that they agreed with the other Commission members about the suitability of the Wilson Learning site and its appropriateness for the property. Acting Chairman Hallett asked if proponents would be prepared with revisions to the project in time for the Staff to review the changes prior to the next Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Doyle stated that he would try, as the time constraints on the project were stringent. The Commissioners emphasized the need for Staff having adequate time to review the project revisions prior to the next Commission meeting. Planning Commission Minutes 5 February 13, 1984 Ms. Susan Hustad, Hustad Development Corporation, restated the need to be at the next Commission meeting to meet their time requirements. MOTION: Motion was made by Johannes, seconded by Hallett, to continue the public hearing and return the item to proponents, pending modification per the Staff Report of February 10, 1984. Motion carried--3-2-0 (Acting Chairman Torjesen and Gartner against) Acting Chairman Torjesen and Gartner stated they were against due to the number of items already scheduled for the next agenda and the need to provide adequate time for discussion of a project this size. They also restated concern that Staff have adequate time to review any changes to the project. C. EDENVALE APARTMENTS 2ND ADDITION, by Bar-ett Construction Co./Edenvale Apartments Partnership. Request for Compre- hensive Guide Plan Amendment from Medium to High Density Residential and Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-2.5 for 4.98 acres for a 70-unit apartment building. Location: Northeast Quadrant of Baker Road and Valley View Road. A public hearing. Ron Erickson, Korsunsky, Krank, Erickson, architects for the proponent, reviewed the request, pointing out significant site features and the characteristics of the design of the project as it fit the site. Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report evaluating the request, noting, in particular, the suggestion for shifting of the building closer to the Valley View Road frontage to allow for a greater amount of space for buffering the parking area from the adjacent road and residential project to the east. Johannes asked if the building materials for this addition were planned to be the same as those used for the existing Edenvale Apartments to the west. Mr. Erickson stated that the quality of the materials would be the same; however, the design of the building was different from that of the existing structures. Acting Chairman Torjesen expressed concern about the screening of the parking area from the Valley View Manor Home project to the east. Staff responded that the landscaping would be checked prior to building permit issuance to be certain that the final landscaping plan would adequately screen the parking area. It was pointed out that the proponent had agreed to shift the building further to the south, which would allow for more room between the parking area and street to increase the area which would be used for screening of the parking area. Planning Commission Minutes 6 February 13, 1984 Acting Chairman Torjesen asked why proponents were requesting a Comprehensive Guide Plan change from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential, noting that the projects east and west of the development were Medium Density Residential . Staff explained that the project had been evaluated as to its impact upon the adjacent uses. The open space provided, the view from Valley View Road, the design of the building, and underground parking all contributed to a use which had been designed to have a minimum impact upon the area. Also, the density proposed was at 14.4 units per acre, which was greater than the density allowed within the Medium Density Residential guiding. Planner Enger stated that Staff's opinion was that there was no negative impact upon the adjacent uses, nor upon Valley View Road, as a result of this project design. Hallett asked what the square footages of the units would be. Mr. Erickson explained that they would range from 850-1,100 sq. ft. Acting Chairman Torjesen asked for comments and questions from members of the audience. There were none. MOTION 1 : Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Johannes, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--5-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Johannes, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Bar-ett Construction Co./Edenvale Apartments Partnership for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential, based on plans dated December 27, 1983, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated February 10, 1984. Motion carried--5-0-0 MOTION 3: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Johannes, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Bar-ett Construction Co./Edenvale Apartments Partnership for Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-2.5 for 4.98 acres for 70 apartment units, based on plans dated December 27, 1984, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated February 10, 1984. Motion carried--5-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes 7 February 13, 1984 D. KINDER CARE LEARNING CENTER. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to Commercial Regional Service and Preliminary Plat of 0.71 acre for a Day Care Facility. Location: Northeast quadrant of Singletree Lane and Glen Lane. A public hearing. Mr. Bob Fors, representing proponent, reviewed the plans for the day care facility with the Planning Commission. He explained that the design of the building was one used in many locations within the United States. Staff reviewed the recommendations of the Staff Report, pointing out concerns about the cupola/bell tower and its compatibility with the other uses within the Eden Glen Planned Unit Development and that development's approved design framework manual . Schuck asked what the purpose of the cupola was to the design of the building. Mr. Fors 'stated that it was part of the foyer/entry way design. Hallett stated that he agreed with the Staff regarding the cupola, that it did not meet the design framework manual requirements for the Eden Glen Planned Unit Development. Gartner stated that she, too, agreed that the conditions of the design framework manual should be adhered to in this case. She stated that she felt the proponent had not offered any compelling information for a change to allow the cupola. Johannes stated that the standards within the design framework manual had already been applied to four other projects within the Eden Glen Planned Unit Development, and that he felt the City should not change direction at this time. Gartner asked if the pitched roof design met the criteria of the design framework manual for this Planned Unit Development. Staff responded that a pitched roof would be more appropriate in a residential area as it was a common roof stile for residential developments. However, the majority of the buildings in commercial areas had flat roofs. Staff added that there were no other restrictions regarding roofs in the design framework manual, but that the majority of the buildings in the area had flat roofs. MOTION 1 : Motion was made by Johannes, seconded by Schuck, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--5-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Johannes, seconded by Schuck, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request for Zoning District Change from Planning Commission Minutes 8 February 13, 1984 Rural to Commercial Regional Service for a day care facility for Kinder Care Learning, based on plans dated January 9, 1984, and February 7, 1984, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated February 10, 1984. Motion carried--5-0-0 MOTION 3 Motion was made by Johannes, seconded by Schuck, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request for preliminary plat for 0.71 acres for a day care facility for Kinder Care Learning, based on plans dated January 9, 1984, and February 7, 1984, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated February 10, 1984. Motion carried--5-0-0 V. OLD BUSINESS Valley View Manor Homes Planner Franzen reviewed some of the changes made to the Valley View Manor Homes project since the previous Planning Commission meeting, pointing out the improvements made to the site to make it "less tight" in its interior relationships, adding more parking spaces and garages (as options), and improving upon the elevations of the rear sections of the buildings. It was Staff's opinion that the changes had created a better site plan for the development. The proponent would be returning to the February 27, 1984, Planning Commission with a completely revised set of plans for Commission review. VI. NEW BUSINESS None. VII. PLANNER'S REPORT None. VIII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Hallett, seconded by Schuck. Acting Chairman Torjesen adjourned the meeting at 10:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, V� Kate Karnas Recording Secretary