Planning Commission - 04/23/1984 AGENDA
Monday, April 23, 1984
SAda'oo1 Board Meeting Room
0 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
(7:40) A. NORTH BAY OF TIMBER LAKES 2ND ADDITION, by Richard Miller Homes.
Request for Zoning District, with variances before the Board of
Appeals, and Site Plan Review for 60 units within 15 buildings on
approximately 10.2 acres; and Preliminary Plat of approximately
10.2 acres into 15 lots. Location: Northwest quadrant of County
Road #4 and Timber Lakes Drive. A public hearing.
•(8:15) B. BROCK RESIDENCE INN, by Eden Prairie Hotel Company. Request for
Zoning District and Site Plan Amendment, with variances before the
Board of Appeals, for 3.8 acres for 128-unit hotel and Registered
Land Survey for 9.2 acres for two lots. Location: Southeast
quadrant of Highway #5 and I-494. A public hearing.
(9:00) C. SOUTHWEST CROSSING PHASE II, by Vantage Companies. Request for
Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Office to Industrial,
Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment, and Planned Unit
Development District Review for 36.89 acres; Zoning District
Change from Rural to I-2 Park for 11.3 acres; and Preliminary Plat
for one lot on 11 .3 acres. Location: West of Washington Avenue,
north of I-494. A public hearing.
(10:00) D. EDEN PRAIRIE TECHNOLOGY PARK, by Hoyt Construction. Request for
Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 Park for 12.0 acres, and
Preliminary Plat of 18.2 acres into one industrial lot, one
outlot, and road right-of-way. Location: W. 76th Street, west of
Washington Avenue. A public hearing.
V. NEW BUSINESS
VI. OLD BUSINESS
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, April 23, 1984
School Board Meeting Room
8100 School Road
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman William Bearman, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett,
Stan Johannes (7:50 p.m.) Dennis Marhula, Ed Schuck, Hakon
Torjesen
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
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 Gartner, seconded by Schuck, to adopt the agenda
as printed.
Motion carried--6-0-0
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
None.
III. MINUTES
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett, to approve the
minutes of the April 9, 1984, Planning Commission meeting as
printed.
Motion carried--5-0-1 (Schuck abstained)
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. NORTH BAY OF TIMBER LAKES 2ND ADDITION, by Richard Miller
Homes. Request for Zoning District, with variances before
the Board of Appeals, and Site Plan Review for 60 units
within 15 buildings on approximately 10.2 acres; and
Preliminary Plat of approximately 10.2 acres into 15 lots.
Location: Northwest quadrant of County Road #4 and Timber
Lakes Drive. A public hearing.
Chairman Bearman acknowledged to receipt of a letter from ten
residents in the vicinity of the proposal dated April 20, 1984
referring to their concerns regarding the impact of such a
Is development on wildlife, the request for a setback variance, and
Planning Commission Minutes 2 April 23, 1984
concern for the lakeshore in general .
Mr. Terry Lamb, Richard Miller Homes, reviewed the site
characteristics and development features proposed. Mr. Lamb also
presented revisions made to the plans based upon Staff
recommendations.
Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the
Staff Report of April 20, 1984. Of concern were the following:
shoreland management, setbacks from the ordinary high water mark of
Mitchell Lake, screening of parking areas, unobstructed access to
adjacent units for parking, the road shown adjacent to the property
line, and the lack of available space for snow storage. Planner
Franzen stated that alternatives were available to mitigate these
zoning issues, including use of different or less number of units,
such that less building coverage and less grading would be required
to accomplish the project.
Torjeson asked if Staff felt the encroachment into the 150 foot
shoreland setback of Mitchell Lake was warranted. Planner Franzen
stated that the property and the narrowness of it made site planning
with this unit type difficult, especially along the north area of
the lake, as this was the smallest dimension on the site. Torjeson
asked if it was possible for the project to be built without
• encroachment upon the shoreline setbacks. Staff responded that it
was.
Torjeson asked what the distance was from the entrance of the
project at County Road #4 to the last unit. Staff responded that it
was over 1,000 feet to the last unit from this entrance point.
Torjeson asked if the proponents were requesting a variance from the
500 foot minimum cul-de-sac length. Planner Enger responded that
this was a private road and was not subject to the subdivision
requirements.
Hallett asked if four of the units were located in the space
previously allocated for tennis courts within the project. He also
asked if the tennis courts had been part of the previously approved
Planned Unit Development on the site. Staff responded that
originally tennis courts were part of this proposal . This project,
as well as the first addition, were not part of the Timber Lakes
Association, which did have a set of tennis courts.
Hallett asked if there was a trail planned to provide access for
these units to the park planned at the south end of Mitchell Lake in
the future. Staff responded that a bike trail along County Road #4
would provide access to the park for these residents. Staff added
that the original Planned Unit Development of several years ago
showed a trail around the lake shore. Since that time the trail
. alignment had been abandoned. Hallett expressed concern that the
trail around the lake would have been preferable and he questioned
how the decision had been made to eliminate this trail . Staff
responded that the matter would be researched and that they would
report back to the Planning Commission.
Planning Commission Minutes 3 April 23, 1984
Marhula asked if the berming and screening along Island Road for the
first addition of Timber Lakes project had been completed. Mr. Lamb
responded that they were still working on the installation process.
Gartner asked if there had been sufficient right-of-way dedicated
for County Road #4 to a full 100 foot width. Staff responded that
an additional 17 feet of right-of-way may be required, and that the
City was still waiting for response from the Hennepin County
Department of Transportation. It was pointed out that the
additional 17 feet of right-of-way was shown on the Preliminary Plat
for the project. Gartner also asked if there would be an additional
entry into this project from County Road #4. Staff responded that
the existing entrances, including the one for the sales office at
County Road #4, would be the only entrances from County Road #4 from
the project.
Chairman Bearman asked if the Homeowners' Association for Timber
Lakes had reviewed this proposal. Mr. Lamb responded that they had
done so. Chairman also asked if the new residents within the first
addition of North Bay of Timber Lakes would have received notice
about this project. Mr. Lamb responded that they had not. Staff
added that it takes approximately two weeks to six months, depending
upon the filing of homestead information with the County, for a new
owner to be registered on the City's records.
Chairman Bearman asked if the steep slope ordinance would come into
effect for this property. Planner Enger responded that it would and
added that the majority of the property involved in this proposal
was either covered by the Slope Ordinance or the Shoreland
Management Ordinance. Chairman Bearman stated that in the next
report on this project he would like to see specific review of the
shoreland and steep slope sections of the ordinance responded to.
Staff stated they would do so with the revised proposal ; however, at
this time those questions were moot, considering the variances
requested from those ordinances by the current proposal.
Chairman Bearman stated that with the next review of this project he
would like to have the proponent respond with site lines along
Island Road from the proposed units to the residences of that area.
He added that he felt it would be important to have a proposal
redesigned which would be more sensitive to the shoreland and slope
features of the property.
Mr. Bruce Bennett, 16643 Terry Pine Drive, stated that he had
specific concerns regarding the shoreland for Mitchell Lake. He
stated that he agreed with Staff that the project was too tight.
Mr. Bennett added that there were existing piles of dirt and trash
on the property, and he questioned what proponents would be doing
with these unsightly conditions prior to development. Mr. Bennett
stated that his final concern was that the road which was proposed
through the project was very close to the existing homes to the
north.
Chairman Bearman asked proponent to work with Staff to provide a
Planning Commission Minutes 4 April 23, 1984
0 list of current residents within the North Bay of Timber Lakes 1st
Addition for the next public hearing on this item. Mr. Lamb
responded that he would do so.
MOTION 1 •
Motion was made by Schuck, seconded by Marhula, to close the public
hearing and return the item to the proponent for revisions in
accordance with the major concerns of the Staff Report dated April
20, 1984, and keeping in mind the concerns discussed by the Planning
Commission at the April 23, 1984, meeting. Further, if proponent
returns to the City within 60 days with a revised application, the
application fee should be waived.
Motion carried--6-1-0 (Johannes against)
Johannes stated that he was against as he felt this would be too
long of a delay for the proponent as opposed to continuing the item
to another specific meeting.
B. BROCK RESIDENCE INN, by Eden Prairie Hotel Company. Request
for Zoning District and Site Plan Amendment, with variances
before the Board of Appeals, for 3.84 acres for 128-unit
hotel and Registered Land Survey for 9.2 acres for two lots.
• Location: Southeast quadrant of Highway #5 and I-494. A
• public hearing.
Planner Enger reviewed the history of this project and its previous
review by the Planning Commission for this 128-unit hotel .
Proponent had submitted a preliminary plan to the City in December,
1983, which showed an original site area of 4.17 acres. The
Planning Staff, in their preliminary review of that sketch plan, was
concerned about the tightness of the site and suggested that a
larger area be zoned in the event that a revised site plan did not
solve the problems of tightness of the site. The area of land zoned
by the City was 4.33 acres. The current site plan being reviewed by
the City was 3.84 acres, with a floor area ratio of 0.57. The Staff
Report identified many aspects of the site plan which were tight and
not acceptable. The amount of land required for this size of
project to meet the 0.4 floor area ratio required by the City Code
would be 5.48 acres.
Mr. Ken Nelson, Eden Prairie Hotel Company, reviewed the site plan
characteristics with the Commission. He stated that approximately
70% of buildings would be brick, with wood trim for exteriors. He
added that exterior stairways had been moved to the interior of the
buildings, especially considering Minnesota weather. Mr. Nelson
stated that they had considered the green areas surrounding the site
to be part of their own buffer areas for the site, even though these
green areas were actually owned by either the State or Federal
Highway Departments for Highway #169 and Highway I-494.
Chairman Bearman asked exactly how much property was involved in the
proposal . Staff reviewed the attachment to the Staff report
Planning Commission Minutes 5 April 23, 1984
explaining the various amounts of property involved at various times
throughout this proposal .
Torjeson asked what specifically had been reviewed and approved in
December, 1983, for this proposal. Planner Enger explained that the
site plan was not available for review at that time, however
sketches were reviewed to give a general idea of site layout and
relationship to surrounding properties of the project.
Hallett stated that he concurred with the findings of the Staff
report, that the site was too tight as proposed. Torjeson added
that he agreed with Hallett.
Mr. Nelson responded to the findings and recommendations of the
Staff Report. Of major concern to proponents was the requirement
for a site plan of the entire nine-acre parcel as opposed to a
review of just the amount of acreage for the Brock Residence Inn.
Staff explained that it is necessary for the City to review an
overall proposal in that one site's use may affect access, parking,
and other design features upon which the Planning Commission and
Council would be making decisions. He added that it was normal for
the City to require such a review on projects of this type.
Chairman Bearman reiterated concern regarding the amount of property
involved in the project. He asked that Staff research the item
through the previously approved Developer's Agreement and report
back to the Planning Commission.
Chairman Bearman asked for comments and questions from members of
the audience. There were none.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett, to continue the
public hearing to the May 14, 1984, Planning Commission meeting to
allow proponent to revise plans to be in conformance with the
recommendations of the Staff Report.
Motion carried--7-0-0
C. SOUTHWEST CROSSING PHASE II, by Vantage Companies. Request
for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Office to
Industrial, Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment, and
Planned Unit Development District Review for 36.89 acres;
Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 Park for 11 .3
acres; and Preliminary Plat for one lot on 11 .3 acres.
Location: West of Washington Avenue, north of I-494. A
public hearing.
Mr. Ray Gearhardt, Vantage Properties, Inc., showed slides of
projects that would be similar to that proposed for the Southwest
Crossing Phase II. He reviewed the overall concept plan for the
property, including vegetation, orientation of roads and buildings,
adjacent uses, etc.
Planning Commission Minutes 6 April 23, 1984
Mr. Gearhardt stated that it was common for showroom and tech
services to be located close to office uses as these buildings would
often contain services for office uses. In combination with their
recently approved 247,000 square foot office building to the west,
this site, and future office sites planned within the overall
Planned Unit Development, would provide a well-balanced development
for this area of the community.
Mr. Sandy Ritter, RSP Architects, reviewed the building elevations,
building materials, and other site features. He explained how roof
top mechanical equipment would be screened and also reviewed the
signage plan for the project.
Chairman Bearman asked if alternatives had been considered for
alternate locations of the buildings to the east in order to
preserve more of the hill and the trees in this vicinity, as opposed
to requesting variances from the required setbacks. Mr. Ritter
stated that they had considered alternatives, but had decided that
the request for variances, in combination with the restoration of
the hill, would be the most preferable alternative. Mr. Gearhardt
stated that the slope created by institution of the required
setbacks would be more severe, and, therefore, less preferable in
their opinion.
is Mr. Gearhardt stated that the floor area ratio for this portion of
the property would be 0.21. He also stated that, in lieu of a
sidewalk located along Viking Drive, it would be Vantage's
preference to locate a bituminous pathway along Smetana Lake
adjacent to the south shoreline, which would meander through the
woodlands of Viking Drive. He also stated that they would schedule
this project to begin concurrent with the office building
construction.
Mr. Raleigh Newsam, Vantage Properties, Inc., stated that final
details of the concept plan were dependent upon the traffic study
for the area, which would include the routing and capacities for
future Golden Triangle Road, the north/south collector for this
property.
Planner Enger reviewed findings and recommendations of the Staff
report of April 20, 1984. He discussed the traffic situation for
this entire area, which would affect the property to the north as
well. Planner Enger stated that he contemplated no difficulties
will the trail relocation proposed by proponent, however, the final
decision would be left to the review of the Parks, Recreation, and
Natural Resources Commission, and the City Council .
Torjeson stated that he could see a potential need for additional
bridges to provide proper access to this site. He stated that he
had voted against the original traffic study for this area as he did
not feel it addressed the problems inherent with the access
requirements for this property.
Planning Commission Minutes 7 April 23, 1984
Torjeson asked if the intensity of the land use proposals for this
area was in balance with that area to the west within this Planned
Unit Development. He also asked whether it balanced with that land
use proposed on the south side of I-494. Staff reviewed the
proposed land uses within the property of both sides of I-494,
stating that, in their opinion the Vantage project along the north
side of I-494 balanced as to land use within its own boundaries, and
also that the two sides of the freeway would indeed balance as to
land use. Torjeson asked what final floor area ratio would be.
Planner Enger responded that the overall floor area ratio for this
site would be under the maximum allowed for this property. Torjeson
stated concern that the implicit approval of this overall concept be
in compliance with the overall plans the City had for the Major
Center Area. Staff responded that in their opinion, this was a
project in full compliance with the goals of the Major Center Area.
Torjeson asked why the proponents were not asking for Planned Unit
Development approval over the entire property. Staff responded that
the results of the traffic study for this area may have an impact on
the final uses, and location of those uses, in the very near future.
Therefore, proponents were requesting Planned Unit Development
District Review only over a portion of the property.
Schuck asked if there would be an opportunity with this proposal to
link the trail system from as far north as Lee Data, through Wilson
Ridge, to this property. Hallett stated that he agreed with the
need for this type of trail system. Planner Enger responded that
this would be referred to a Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources
Commission for review. Staff added that this was a matter which
could be accomplished more easily at this time than it would be
after the properties were developed.
Chairman Bearman asked what had been determined as to a creek
crossing of Nine Mile Creek by Golden Triangle Road with respect to
the Watershed authority. Staff responded that the Watershed
District had just begun their review of this project, and that at
this point in time they could foresee no difficulty with a creek
crossing.
Mr. Herliev Helle, 6138 Arctic Way, asked if an alignment had been
decided for Golden Triangle Road going north and eventually
connecting into his property. Staff responded that this would be
determined by the traffic study for this area involving Golden
Triangle Road and access and traffic circulation for this entire
area.
MOTION l :
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Johannes, to close the
public hearing.
Motion carried--7-0-0
Planning Commission Minutes 8 April 23, 1984
MOTION 2•
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Schuck, to recommend to the
City Council, approval of the Comprehensive Guide Plan change from
Office to Industrial, and Planned Unit Development Concept
Amendment, and Planned Unit Development District Review for 36.89
acres for Southwest Crossing Phase II by Vantage Properties, . Inc.,
based on written materials dated March 5, 1984, and plans dated
March 20, 1984, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report
dated April 20, 1984, and adding the following: That proponent's
proposed location for the trail, along the south side of Smetana
Lake, as opposed to along Viking Drive, be approved.
Motion carried--7-0-0
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Schuck, to recommend to the
City Council, approval of the Zoning District Change from Rural to
I-2 Park for 11.3 acres for Southwest Crossing Phase II by Vantage
Properties, Inc., based on written materials dated March 5, 1984,
and plans dated March 20, 1984, subject to the recommendations of
the Staff Report dated April 20, 1984, adding the following: That
proponent's proposed location for the trail, along the south side of
Smetana Lake, as opposed to along Viking Drive, be approved.
Motion carried--7-0-0
MOTION 4:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Schuck, to recommend to the
City Council, approval of the Preliminary Plat of Southwest Crossing
Phase II by Vantage Properties, Inc., based on written materials
dated March 5, 1984, and plans dated March 20, 1984, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff report dated April 20, 1984, adding the
following: That proponent's proposed location for the trail, along
the south side of Smetana Lake, as opposed to along Viking Drive, be
approved.
Motion carried--7-0-0
D. EDEN PRAIRIE TECHNOLOGY PARK, by Hoyt Construction. Request
for Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 Park for 12.0
acres, and Preliminary Plat of 18.2 acres into one
industrial lot, one outlot, and road right-of-way.
Location: W. 76th Street, west of Washington Avenue. A
public hearing.
Mr. Peter Jarvis, BRW, consultants for proponent, reviewed the site
characteristics, surrounding land uses, proposed uses, soils,
slopes, and utilities available and proposed for the site. He
stated that it was proponent's opinion that the preferrable route
for proposed Golden Triangle Drive would be through the center of
the hill, that the hill was not a significant feature of the site as
Planning Commission Minutes 9 April 23, 1984
it might be for other developments, due to the mining operations
which had taken place on the property in past years.
Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the
Staff Report of April 20, 1984.
Torjeson asked which of the three proposed alternative alignments
for Golden Triangle Drive through this property was preferred by the
Staff. Staff stated that the westerly alignment was preferable, in
that' it required the least amount of removal of the hill from this
site. Staff added that this would be a decision finalized with
traffic study information to be completed for the Vantage site to
the south and this property.
Hallett asked if there would be an extension of Smetana Lane
included in this site. Staff responded that it would probably be
necessary, and desirable, and that this, too, be considered in the
traffic study for this property.
Mr. Jarvis stated that proponents agreed that a connection to
Smetana Lane would be a positive feature providing access and
traffic circulation within this property. He added that he felt
more than just the two property owners, Vantage and themselves,
would be benefitting from this traffic study.
Mr. Herliev Helle, 6138 Arctic Way, owner of the property north of
• this project, asked if the twelve acres to be rezoned with this
initial phase of this project would abut the north/south collector
and therefore require its completion at this time. Staff responded
that the north/south collector was west of the twelve acres being
requested to be rezoned and that development of the remainder of the
property would be dependent on the location determined for the
north/south collector.
Mr. Helle expressed concern that the north/south collector align
with his proposed road running north and south within Norseman 6th
Addition abutting this project on the north. Mr. Jarvis responded
that currently the north/south collectors were shown at an off-set
of five to ten feet between the Eden Prairie Technology Park
proposal and the Norseman 6th Addition project. However, he stated
that this would be easily mitigated at a time the final alignment
was determined by the traffic study. He added that it was their
full intention to align these roads to connect properly at the north
boundary as well as the south boundary with the Vantage proposal.
Mr. Helle asked about the matching of grades at the shared boundary
at his property and the Eden Prairie Technology Park property to the
south. Due to mining activities on either side of this boundary, a
ridge had been created, which had caused severe grade differences
between the two properties. He stated that he felt it would be in
the best interest of both the Eden Prairie Technology Park owners
and himself to match the grades at this site, not only for the road,
but for the full distance of the boundaries shared between the two
properties.
Planning Commission Minutes 10 April 23, 1984
. Mr. William Pierson, owner of the property proposed to be Eden
Prairie Technology Park, stated that he, too, fully intended to
match these grades at time of development. He stated that he would
be willing to work this out with the owner of the property to the
north. Chairman Bearman suggested that the two owners meet to
coordinate the grading matter, and that they report back to the City
as to their final decision.
Mr. Bruce Hoyt, Hoyt Development, stated that he would like the City
to consider the alignment of Golden Triangle Road through the center
of the hill . He stated that, due to the mining operations on the
site, the hill had become a rather unnatural looking feature for the
property. Mr. Hoyt stated that in his opinion, removal of this hill
would not be a great detriment to the site, nor to the City.
MOTION 1 :
Motion was made by Schuck, seconded by Gartner, to close the public
hearing.
Motion carried--7-0-0
MOTION 2:
• Motion was made by Torjesen, seconded by Gartner, to recommend to
the City Council approval of the request of Hoyt Construction for
zoning district change from Rural to I-2 Park for 12.0 acres, based
on written materials and plans dated March 12, 1984, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated April 20, 1984, with the
adding the following: that the trail system through this property
north to Wilson Ridge and Lee Data and south through the Vantage
proposal be continuous through this property.
Motion carried--7-0-0-
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Torjesen, seconded by Gartner, to recommend to
the City Council approval of the request of Hoyt Construction for
Preliminary Plat of 18.2 acres into one lot and one outlot, based on
written materials and plans dated March 12, 1984, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated April 20, 1984, adding the
following: that the trail system through this property north to
Wilson Ridge and Lee Data and south through the Vantage proposal, be
continuous through this property.
Motion carried--7-0-0
V. NEW BUSINESS
None.
VI. OLD BUSINESS
Planning Commission Minutes 11 Apri1* 23, 1984
None.
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
May Meetings
The Planning Commission discussed the need for an additional meeting
in May and tentatively scheduled a special meeting for May 30, 1984.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Gartner, seconded by Torjesen.
Chairman Bearman adjourned the meeting at 12:30 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kate Karnas
Recording Secretary