Planning Commission - 03/26/1984 AGENDA
Monday, March 26, 1984
School Board Meeting 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
(7:45) A. CITY WEST CONVENTION CENTER, by Hospitality Growth Services.
Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to Commercial
Regional Service (with variances to be reviewed by the Board
of Appeals) and Preliminary Plat of 5.5 acres for a Hotel-
Convention Center. Location: Northeast quadrant of City
West Parkway and County Road 61. A public hearing.
(8:45) . B. O'NEILL OFFICE BUILDING. Request for Zoning District Change
from Rural to Office with variances to be reviewed by the
Board of Appeals), and Preliminary Plat of 1 .70 acres for an
office building. Location: Northeast quadrant of City West
Parkway and County Road #61 . A public hearing.
(9:30) C. LEE DATA EXPANSION, by Opus Corporation/Lee Data. Request
for Planned Unit Development District, Zoning and Site Plan
Amendment to add 72,000 sq. ft. of Office use to existing
Lee Data building. Location: Southeast quadrant of 70th
Street and Flying Cloud Drive. A public hearing.
(10:30) D. PRESERVE COMMERCIAL PARK NORTH ADDITION, Eden Prairie Car
Care Center. Request for Preliminary Plat of 2.8 acres
(with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals) for
Car Care Center. Location: Northwest quadrant of Prairie
Center Drive and Highway #169. A public hearing.
V. NEW BUSINESS
VI. OLD BUSINESS
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, March 26, 1984
School Board Meeting Room
8100 School Road
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman William Bearman, Robert Hallett, Stan Johannes,
Dennis Marhula, Ed Schuck, Hakon Torjesen
MEMBER ABSENT: Virginia Gartner
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 Hallett, seconded by Marhula, to adopt the agenda
as printed.
Motion carried--6-0-0
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
None.
III. MINUTES
MOTION:
Motion was made by Schuck, seconded by Torjesen, to approve the
minutes of the March 12, 1984, Planning Commission meeting as
printed.
Motion carried--4-0-2 (Johannes and Marhula abstained)
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. CITY WEST CONVENTION CENTER, by Hospitality Growth Services.
Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to Commercial
Regional Service, with variances, and Preliminary Plat of
5.5 acres for a Hotel-Convention Center. Location:
Northeast quadrant of City West Parkway and County Road 61.
A public hearing.
Planner Enger stated that the proponent would be making a partial
presentation of the project this evening. The project would be
amended by the proponent before the Planning Commission would be
Planning Commission Minutes 2 March 26, 1984
asked for their recommendations to the Council .
Mr. Chuck Engles, architect for proponent, stated that they would be
working to bring the project into compliance with the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated March 23, 1984. Mr.
Engles stated that they had met with Staff, and would be meeting
with Staff, again, to work out some of the details of the amendments
to the project. He added that they would be prepared for the
Planning Commission meeting four weeks from this date.
Mr. Engles reviewed the Staff Report recommendations and the
intentions of the proponents to mitigate the problems with the
project. He also displayed the elevations of the site and reviewed
the characteristics of the surrounding area with the Commission.
Mr. Engles explained the other uses in the hotel building including
the ballroom, restaurants, pool, and other facilities that would be
available to people using the hotel .
Planner Enger reviewed the recommendations of the Staff Report. He
reviewed in detail the parking situation as proposed by the
proponents. Planner Enger pointed out that the comparisons of
parking spaces available to those required were based on the parking
study done for the Sheraton Inn, which had been based on a study of
thirteen suburban hotels within the surrounding communities.
Planner Enger'pointed out that the average number of parking spaces
per room was 2.22 spaces. This had been based on different emphasis
for various functions, such as restaurants, within the different
hotels examined by the study.
Planner Enger discussed with the Commisssion alternatives for
mitigating the parking situation. He suggested that parking, or
other functions such as laundry facilities, kitchen facilities,
etc., for the hotel could be placed on a lower level under the
building. This would add to the space available at grade for
additional parking spaces on the lot.
Johannes asked if there were any plans for shuttle services or other
mass transit arrangements which had been made for the hotel. Mr.
Engles responded that, other than anticipated service from the
airport, no other mass transit had been planned for the hotel .
Mr. Jim Eastman, Kahler Hotel Companies, stated that such
arrangements would be made in a more definitive manner after the
hotel was in operation. He stated that tour transportation would,
of course, be made available to hotel guests in the future.
Johannes stated that two other hotels were currently in process
within the City. He asked if proponents had taken into account the
fact that these hotels would be existing at the time theirs would be
opened in terms of marketing studies. Mr. Eastman stated that the
two hotels had been taken into account.
Chairman Bearman asked if structured parking had been considered for
the site. Mr. Engles responded that it had been considered;
Planning Commission Minutes 3 March 26, 1984
however, it was quite costly, in their opinion and had not been
planned as an alternative at this point in time.
Torjesen stated that based upon the study done for the suburban
hotels, he felt that the 470 spaces would be required as a minimum
for the site. He stated that it would be incumbent upon the
proponent to present a case for anything less than 470 spaces.
Torjesen asked if the twelve-foot wide bay for hotel rooms was
common. He stated that his experience was that most rooms were 14
to 15 feet in width. Mr. Eastman responded that a twelve-foot wide
hotel room was an industry standard and had been used in many of the
hotels that they had built in the past several years.
Marhula stated that the original Planned Unit Development for this
site had allowed for a 12.5-acre hotel site in the adopted plan. He
added that it had been a 300 room hotel, which would be
appr6ximately 24 rooms per acre for the 12.5 acres. By comparison,
this hotel site on 5.5 acres with 228 rooms calculated out to be 42
rooms per acre. Marhula stated that he felt this was a significant
deviation from the original Planned Unit Development. He stated
that he felt it would the proponent's responsibility to justify this
variation from the plan. Marhula asked what had happened to the
other seven acres designated for hotel use in the original Planned
Unit Development.
Chairman Bearman asked what the traffic impacts would be for this
size of hotel on this size of site. Planner Enger explained that
hotel peak hours were different than those of office and other types
of uses within this vicinity.
Marhula stated that it appeared as though this may be a significant
change in the originally approved Planned Unit Development in that
the amount of traffic would be changed from a twelve-acre site to a
five-acre site. He questioned the advisibility of intensifying this
hotel use by compacting it onto a smaller site, and, therefore, the
amount of traffic which it would generate, considering the site was
now 5.5 acres, not 12.5 acres.
Torjesen stated that he, too, was uncomfortable with what he
considered to be a significant change in the originally approved
Planned Unit Development. He asked whether this constituted a
significant change in the overall Planned Unit Development. Planner
Enger responded that the intensity of use was still in compliance
with that of the originally approved Planned Unit Development. He
pointed out that the original Planned Unit Development had
designated this site for Regional Commercial use, which would
include a hotel use.
Chairman Bearman stated that he was not as concerned about the
reduction in the size of the site as he was about the amount of
traffic. He stated that he felt careful consideration should be
given to adequate ingress and egress for the site.
Planning Commission Minutes 4 March 26, 1984
Chairman Bearman asked for comments and questions from members of
the audience. There were none.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Johannes, to continue the
public hearing for the City West Hotel Convention Center to the May
7, 1984, special Planning Commission meeting to allow proponent
opportunity to amend the plans to be in conformance with City Code
requirements.
Motion carried--6-0-0
B. O'NEILL OFFICE BUILDING. Request for Zoning District Change
from Rural to Office, and Preliminary Plat of 1.70 acres for
an office building. Location: Northeast quadrant of City
West Parkway and County Road #61 . A public hearing.
Mr. Len Lampert, architect for the proponent, reviewed the site
characteristics and site plan features with the Commission.
Planner Enger reviewed the recommendations and findings of the Staff
Report of March 23, 1984. He stated that the point of access from
City West Parkway for this site and the hotel site to the north was
shared access at the north boundary line of this project. Planner
Enger stated that it would be necessary for the hotel site to
coordinate with this site in terms of several matters including
grading, driveway access, and shared parking arrangements. Planner
Enger stated that, for example, the driveway lane for the office
building was located 50 feet from the right-of-way of City West
Parkway, while the driveway lane for the hotel was located 35 feet
back from the right-of-way for City West Parkway. In order to
provide a smooth joint access situation for shared parking, it would
be necessary for one or the other of the sites to adjust the
driveway lanes to match the other site. This would be necessary to
avoid jogging of the driving lane, which would create a hazardous
driving situation for guests using the office building parking lot
for hotel patronage. If the office building were to relocate it's
driveway lane to match that of the hotel, there would be a loss of
approximately nine to ten parking spaces for the office site in this
location. The spaces could possibly be made up in another portion
of the site.
Torjesen asked Staff to review three uses which had been approved
for that area along the east side of City West Parkway in terms of
their intensity and consistency with the overall Planned Unit
Development. Staff reviewed the three uses, Primetech, the City
West Convention Hotel, and the O'Neill Office Building site in terms
of their floor area ratios, traffic, and consistency with the
Planned Unit Development. Staff pointed out that, in their opinion,
these uses were all consistent with those approved in the original
Planned Unit Development.
Torjesen stated that he felt it would be appropriate to require that
Planning Commission Minutes 5 March 26, 1984
the parking to be shared by the three facilities be coordinated by
the individual proponents.
Marhula asked if the adjacent sites had been platted at this time.
Mr. Scott Anderson, Anderson Development, Inc., explained the
various ownerships within the vicinity.
Mr. Anderson stated that they intended to work with Staff to
coordinate the parking situations between Primetech, the hotel, and
the O'Neill Office Building.
Marhula questioned whether it would be appropriate to deal with a
preliminary plat for the office building, if it became necessary to
add land to the hotel site in order that adequate parking be
available for the hotel site. Planner Enger pointed out that
alternatives were still available, other than adding land to the
site, for mitigation of the hotel parking problems.
Hallett stated that he felt this site for the office building should
be dealt with based upon it's own merits, and not be based on review
of another site.
Chairman Bearman asked for comments and questions from members of
the audience. There were none.
Torjesen asked how much flexibility was available to the Staff for
dealing with the parking situation for the office building itself,
with respect to the realignment of the driveways required for the
joint access situation with the hotel . Staff stated that if the
change was insignificant, such as three to five spaces, they would
be able to deal with situation at a Staff level . If not, Staff
would ask the proponent to return to the Planning Commission for
review.
Marhula asked Staff to explain the condition in the Staff Report
regarding Shady Oak Road assessments. Planner Enger responded that,
based upon the study done for feasibility of upgrading of Shady Oak
Road, it had been determined that the sites within the City West
Planned Unit Development would all benefit from the upgrading of
Shady Oak Road. Therefore, it had been Council 's decision that, at
such time as it became necessary to upgrade Shady Oak Road, the
assessments would be spread to all benefitting properties, which
would include those within the City West Planned Unit Development.
MOTION 1 :
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Johannes, to close the
public hearing.
Motion carried--6-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Torjesen, to recommend to
Planning Commission Minutes 6 March 26, 1984
the City Council approval of the request for zoning district change
from Rural to Office, for the O'Neill Office Building, based on
plans dated February 22, and revised March 2, 1984, and written
materials dated March 5, 1984, subject to the recommendations of the
Staff Report dated March 23, 1984.
Motion carried--6-0-0
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Schuck, to recommend to the
City Council approval of the request for preliminary plat of 1 .7
acres for the O'Neill Office Building, based on plans dated February
22, and revised March 2, 1984, and written materials dated March 5,
1984, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated March
23, 1984.
Motion carried--6-0-0
C. LEE DATA EXPANSION, by Opus Corporation/Lee Data. Request
for Planned Unit Development District, Zoning and Site Plan
Amendment to add 72,000 sq. ft. of Office use to existing
Lee Data building. Location: Southeast quadrant of W. 70th
Street and Flying Cloud Drive. A public hearing.
Mr. Bob Worthington, Director of Planning and Governmental Affairs
of Opus Corporation, reviewed the history of the Lee Data project,
as well as the plans for expansion proposed for the use. Mr. John
McKenzie, Opus Corporation, reviewed the site characteristics and
elevations of the proposed expansion plan for Lee Data.
Planner Enger reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff
Report dated March 23, 1984. He pointed out that, while the
original plan had shown the building nestled between a northeasterly
and southwesterly knoll , it had been the intention of the proponent
to remove a portion of the northeast knoll for the extension of W.
70th Street to provide access for the north portion of the site in
the future at the time of expansion. This would eliminate
approximately one-half of the knoll at the northeast corner of the
site.
Hallett asked how much of the building was being used at this time.
Mr. Worthington responded that approximately 90-95% of the building
was currently in use. He pointed out that approximately 80 parking
spaces of those currently provided for the site were not in use.
Mr. Worthington stated that, based on their information regarding
large buildings of this type, employing large numbers of people,
there was a time at which the building parking needs became less as
employees began carpooling and using other means of mass
transportation. This, in his opinion, explained the 80 vacant
spaces on the site currently. Planner Enger stated that, while this
may be true, Staff preferred that the proponent show proof of
parking availability on the site, should it be needed in the future.
Planning Commission Minutes 7 March 26, 1984
Torjesen asked why a Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment was
necessary for this site. Planner Enger stated that the original
Planned Unit Development did not show a 72,000 square foot office
addition. Therefore, it was necessary for Lee Data to appear before
the Commission and the Council for review of this expansion as
proposed and that it would be required to be an amendment to the
original Planned Unit Development Concept.
Torjesen stated that he felt a berm, as proposed in the northeast
corner of the site, which would replace a portion of the existing
knoll, would appear artificial . He questioned the need for removal
of half of the knoll. He stated that area for proof of parking had
been shown on an adjacent lot which, while under the current
ownership of Lee Data, was, in his opinion, inappropriate. Torjesen
stated that he felt the Lee Data plans for expansion should be
shown, which would include the entire parcel to the north, as well
as the land on which the current building was located. He stated
that by showing only a portion of the expansion at this time,
knowing that there would be need for expansion in the future, Lee
Data was taking a piecemeal planning approach. He asked whether an
overall plan was available at this time. Staff responded that an
overall plan had been shown to the Staff, but had not been available
for distribution to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Worthington stated that in the original Planned Unit
Development, W. 70th Street had been shown in the location which
would require elimination of half of the knoll at the northeast
corner of the site. He stated that this was consistent with the
approval of the overall plan in 1982.
Torjesen stated that he felt it was important for the Planning
Commission to understand the plans for future expansion of the Lee
Data site. He stated that he felt approving the plans for expansion
on a piece by piece basis was inappropriate, and that he felt, even
if the plans for expansion changed, the Planning Commission would be
able to deal with one solid concept and any changes that may occur
to the solid concept, as opposed to an unknown situation.
Johannes stated that he felt the Commission could act on the project
as presented. He stated that he was not concerned about thb removal
of a portion of the knoll at the northeast corner of the site, since
it had already been approved for extension of W. 70th Street by the
original Planned Unit Development. Johannes added that he felt the
recommendations included in the Staff Report were sufficient to
cover City concerns regarding the extension of W. 70th Street, and
it's possible relocation, as well as requirement for future plans to
show proposed expansion of the Lee Data facility. He stated that he
did not feel it was necessary to see these plans at this time for
the expansion of the 72,000 square foot office building.
Hallett stated that he felt proponents had planned well by purchase
of the Hanson site to the north. He added that while he, too, was
concerned about future plans, he was not concerned about those plans
at this time for purposes of expansion of the current office
Planning Commission Minutes 8 March 26, 1984
facility. Hallett asked proponents if the plans for expansion had
been solidified. Mr. Worthington responded that the plans were not
solidified, and in fact, had been changed several times already.
Schuck stated that he agreed with other Commissioners regarding the
lack of necessity of seeing future plans at this time. He stated
that he felt the Commission could act on the expansion plans for the
office portion of the existing facility now, and review future
expansion plans at a time when Lee Data plans were more conclusive.
Chairman Bearman stated that the parking area proposed for the
expansion was at least 900 feet from the main building entrance. He
also expressed concern for the large amount of blacktop which would
be visible from adjacent sites. Chairman Bearman asked proponents
if they had considered structured parking for the site.
Mr. Worthington responded that the plans for the office building
incorporated an additional entrance to the building for better
access to the expansion area of the parking lot. Chairman Bearman
stated that he felt additional landscaping within the existing
parking lot would add greatly to the visual impact of this large
hard-surfaced area. He suggested that parking islands, which would
be landscaped, be added to the site as it existed. Mr. Worthington
responded that he felt Lee Data would be willing to work with the
City in this matter, however, they would not want to compromise
their expansion needs.
Johannes stated that he had agreed with Chairman Bearman regarding
upgrading of the existing blacktop area with landscaping. He also
suggested that, as with other buildings that had been reviewed by
the City, some method of breaking up the long, linear nature of the
building from vision along #169 should be considered.
Mr. McKenzie stated that the proponents were working with Staff to
revise the landscaping plans, particularly in front of the tennis
courts and ballfield, at this time. Mr. McKenzie stated that this
had been a concern of the City in the past and would aid to mitigate
the view of the recreation area and, therefore, the parking area,
from vision along Highway #169.
Torjesen reiterated concern for the lack of an overall plan for
proposed and future expansion of the Lee Data site.
MOTION 1 :
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Hallett, to close the public
hearing.
Motion carried--5-1-0 (Torjesen against)
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Hallett, to recommend to the
Planning Commission Minutes 9 March 26, 1984
City Council, approval of the request of Lee Data for Planned Unit
Development District and zoning and site plan amendment for
expansion of the office portion of their building by 72,000 sq. ft.,
based on plans dated March 22, 1984, subject to the recommendations
of the Staff Report dated March 23, 1984, with the following added
condition: "Proponents shall provide the City with proof of
ownership for the parcel upon which the future parking is proposed
for the expansion of the office portion of the existing Lee Data
facility and prior to consideration of relocation of W. 70th
Street."
The Commission agreed that, in the Staff review of the landscape
plan, Staff should take into consideration landscaping methods and
materials which would providing for breaking up of the long, linear
nature of the face of the building, and which would break up the
massive nature of the hard-surfaced parking lot. Planting islands
were recommended in the existing parking lot. Staff stated that
they would follow through with these recommendations in review of
the landscape plan.
Motion carried--4-2-0 (Chairman Bearman and Torjesen against)
D. PRESERVE COMMERCIAL PARK NORTH ADDITION, Eden Prairie Car
Care Center. Request for Preliminary Plat of 2.8 acres for
Car Care Center. Location: Northwest quadrant of Prairie
Center Drive and Highway #169. A public hearing.
Mr. Ed Flaherty, proponent, reviewed the site plan and site
characteristics with the Commission.
Planner Enger reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff
Report of March 23, 1984.
Chairman Bearman asked if the user of the superette site had been
identified at this time. Mr. Flaherty responded that no user had
yet been identified. Chairman Bearman asked if the superette would
have sale of gasoline available to customers. Mr. Flaherty
responded that it would.
Hallett asked if there would be pedestrian access from this site
across Highway #169 to the Eden Prairie Center in the future. Staff
responded that there would be.
Chairman Bearman asked for comments and questions 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--6-0-0
Planning Commission Minutes 10 March 26, 1984
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Schuck, to recommend to the
City Council, approval of the request of the Preserve of Eden
Prairie for preliminary plat of 2.8 acres for a car care center,
based on plans dated November, 1983, subject to the recommendations
of the Staff Report dated March 23, 1984.
V. NEW BUSINESS
None.
VI. OLD BUSINESS
None.
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
None.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Schuck, seconded by Torjesen.
Chairman Bearman adjourned the meeting at 11 :30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kate Karnas
Recording Secretary