Loading...
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