Loading...
Planning Commission - 09/24/1984 r AGENDA Mond,4y, September 24, 1984 School Board Meeting Room 7:30 p:m. COMMISSIONERS: Chairman William Bearman, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett, Stan Johannes, Dennis Marhula, Ed Schuck, Hakon Torjesen STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael 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. EDEN COMMONS, by the Chasewood Company. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-2.5 for 218 multiple family residential units, Preliminary Plat of 12.5 acres into one lot, and Environmental Assessment Worksheet Review. Location: Northwest corner of Franlo Road and Preserve Boulevard. A continued public hearing. (7:50) B. MUIRFIELD by Tandem Corporation. Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential for approximately 25 acres; Planned Unit Development District Review, with variances, and Zoning from Rural to R1-13.5 for approximately 11.0 acres and from Rural to R1-9.5 for approximately 25 acres; Preliminary Plat of 36 acres into 119 single family lots; and Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Location: North side of Valley View Road, west of Park View Lane. A public hearing. (8:30) C. GOLF RIDGE, by Golf Ridge, Inc. Request for Preliminary Plat of 0.473 acre into one lot for single family residential development. Location: Northeast corner of Bennett Place and County Road #1. A public hearing. Agenda Page 2 (8:35) D. SUPERAMERICA. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to C- Hwy and Preliminary Plat of 1.35 acres for Service Station/Convenience Store. Location: Southwest quadrant of County Road #4 and Highway #5. A public meeting. (9:00) E. COMPUTER DEPOT, by Wilson Ridge Joint Venture. Request for Zoning District Amendment within I-2 Zoning District for Office/Warehouse use on 5.42 acres. Location: North Valley View Road, east of Highway #169. A public meeting. (9:30) F. PRIMETECH II, by Prime Development. Request for Planned Unit Development District Review of 20.0 acres; Zoning District Change from Rural Commercial-Regional-Service for a day care center; and Preliminary Plat of one acre into one lot for a day care center. Location: North of Shady Oak Road, East of City West Parkway. A public hearing. V. OLD BUSINESS VI. NEW BUSINESS VII. PLANNER'S REPORT O VIII. ADJOURNMENT NOTE: The above listed times are tentative--the items for the agenda may be significantly earlier, or later, than shown. MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 24, 1984 8100 School Road 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chairman Hakon Torjesen, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett, Dennis Marhula, Ed Schuck (7:35 p.m.) MEMBER ABSENT: Chairman William Bearman STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Kate Karnas, Recording Secretary Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION• Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Johannes, to adopt the agenda as printed. Motion carried--5-0-0 II. MEMBERS REPORTS None. III. MINUTES MOTION: Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Gartner, to adopt the minutes of the September 10, 1984, Planning Commission meeting with the following change: Page 3, paragraph 8, last sentence, under Edenvale II, be amended to read, "Mr. Anderson responded that the access was anticipated to be at-grade in part, but that there was a 4-5 foot grade difference between the elevation of the parking lot and the elevation of the doorways to the building." Motion carried--4-0-1 (Johannes abstained) (Schuck arrived at 7:35 p.m.) IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. EDEN COMMONS, by the Chasewood Company. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-2.5 for 218 multiple family residential units, Preliminary Plat of 12.5 acres into one lot, and Environmental Assessment Worksheet Review. Location: Northwest corner of Franlo Road and Preserve Boulevard. A continued public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes 2 September 24, 1984 Mr. Joe Crook, architect for proponent, reviewed the changes in the site plan since the previous meeting with the Planning Commission on September 10, 1984. The number of units had been reduced to 196, additional landscaping had been located in the areas of concern noted by the Commission, particularly along the south border of the property, and building relationships had been revised. Planner Enger reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report of September 21, 1984, with the Planning Commission. Marhula stated that, during review of a previous proposal for multiple residential development on this site, there had been concerns regarding the property to the west. He asked Staff if these concerns still existed, or had been mitigated. Planner Enger stated that the property to the west had been developed as single family homes. He stated that the concern at that time was how this development related to the single family homes to the west. Planner Enger pointed out that land to the west was guided for High Density Residential development. He stated that the current project would likely have even less impact on the property to the west, due to the manner in which grading was being proposed for this site and due to the residential character of the buildings proposed by the proponent. Acting Chairman Torjesen questioned what had been done to mitigate the relationship between the proposed buildings and the existing land use to the • south. Planner Enger stated that the first tier of lots south of the property was zoned as duplexes. He stated that only one building of the Eden Commons proposal was currently facing Franlo Road. Further, the garages that had been facing Franlo Road were now smaller in size, and landscaping and berming had been added to screen this area of the Eden Commons proposal from the property to the south. 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 Schuck, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--6-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Schuck, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request by Chasewood Company for Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-2.5 for 196 multiple family residential units, to be known as Eden Commons, based on revised plans dated September 19, 1984, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated August 24, September 7, and September 21, 1984. Motion carried--6-0-0 MOTION 3: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Schuck, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request by Chasewood Company for Preliminary Plat of Planning Commission Minutes 3 September 24, 1984 • 12.5 acres into one lot for multi-family residential development to be known as Eden Commons, based on revised plans dated September 19, 1984, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated August 24, September 7, and September 21, 1984. Motion carried--6-0-0 MOTION 4: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Schuck, to recommend to the City Council a finding of no significant impact for the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the Eden Commons development by the Chasewood Company. Motion carried--6-0-0 B. MUIRFIELD by Tandem Corporation. Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential for approximately 25 acres; Planned Unit Development District Review, with variances, and Zoning from Rural to R1-13.5 for approximately 11.0 acres and from Rural to R1-9.5 for approximately 25 acres; Preliminary Plat of 36 acres into 119 single family lots; and Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Location: North side of Valley View Road, west of Park View Lane. A public hearing. . Planner Enger recapped the history of review of this project with the Planning Commission. He stated that the project had been reviewed at two previous Planning Commission meetings, resulting in a 3-3 deadlocked vote on the request for a Comprehensive Guide Plan Change. After the last Planning Commission meeting reviewing the project, the City Council reviewed the project and returned the item to the Commission for recommendation regarding the remainder of the proposal and specific recommendation regarding the proposed Comprehensive Guide Plan Change. Mr. Dick Putnam, proponent, reviewed the surrounding site characteristics and land uses. He also reviewed the various changes through which the project had been processed based on neighborhood, Planning Commission, and Council concerns. Mr. Putnam then reviewed the latest revisions to the plan with the Planning Commission. Planner Enger stated that the Planning Staff had previously recommended approval of the project and of a requested Guide Plan Change specifically, due to the introduction by proponents of several features justifying a Comprehensive Guide Plan Change. For example: variety of architecture, variety of life style choices, and availability of more affordable housing. He pointed out that the revised plan had been reduced from 3.18 units per acre to 3.08 units per acre. Proponents had succeeded in averaging all lot sizes such that no variances were required within the zoning districts requested. • Planner Enger pointed out that the revised plan resulted in less housing variety for the project. It now appeared that Muirfield represented more of a standard, or typical, single family subdivision. He stated that the only control the City would have over a variety of housing types would be within the areas proposed for the R1-9.5 Zoning District. Planning Commission Minutes 4 September 24, 1984 Johannes asked if it would be possible to include the variety of housing types as a condition within the R1-13.5 District, as well . Planner Enger stated that the City had limited this review requirement to the R1-9.5 District due to the size of lots available within the R1-9.5 District. The size of typical lots within this district would, at times, preclude the use of other than a very limited number of unit styles. It had been the intention of the City to provide for a requirement of variety of housing types in order to avoid too many similar unit types within one project. Planner Enger stated that it had been felt by the City that the R1-13.5 District provided enough flexibility in lot size not to preclude the variety of housing types within any particular subdivision. Johannes stated that he felt it would be appropriate to include this provision within the R1-13.5 District, particularly within subdivisions such as this with a mixture of requested zoning districts. Gartner asked how the City determined whether a trail was to be concrete or bituminus. Staff responded that concrete stood up better during construction and had a very good maintainance record over a long period of time. Bituminus trails were generally located along County roads and within parks where less wear upon the trails would be possible. Gartner asked if there was a significant difference in cost. Planner Enger responded that a five-foot wide concrete sidewalk was slightly higher in cost than an eight- foot wide bituminus trail . Gartner expressed disappointment that the revisions to the project had resulted in what she felt was a less innovative project for the City. She stated that she felt the project was still too dense. Marhula questioned concerns stated about transition to the property to the east. He pointed out that this land was also guided for Low Density Residential development. Mr. Putnam had stated that the east boundary of the property existed as a 25-foot high hill . Further, assessments for the property to the east were shown as higher than the properties in the area. He stated that, in his opinion, this property to the east had been assessed as if it were multi-family and would likely best be developed as multi- family. Marhula stated that he was less concerned with transition to the east, also, due to the fact that the property owner to the east was the same as the owner of the Muirfield proposal . He suggested that perhaps multiple residential development on the property to the east would be appropriate due to topography of the property. He pointed out that the Planning Commission would have to review this plan based upon its own merits when it was proposed. Acting Chairman Torjesen asked Staff to review the conditions under which the property to the south had received a Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low to Medium Density Residential, and the transitions measures used to develop the property and its relationship to the existing single family development in the area. Planner Enger reviewed the project pointing out that the western third of the property had been approved as large lot single • family development. Townhouses had been approved in the central portion of the site. Along the north border of the site was an area approved for R1- 9.5 zoning; however, the lots ranged from 12,000 to 14,000 square feet in size. Single family cluster lots were shown along the south border of this property. Planner Enger pointed out that the City had made it clear at the Planning Commission Minutes 5 September 24, 1984 time of review of this project that the Lorence Addition to the east, which had been approved for mulitiple residential development, should not be considered as a reason for allowing higher density anywhere else in this vicinity. The approval for the project to the south of Muirfield for a Comprehensive Guide Plan Change to allow the multiple residential development had been based upon its own merits and upon the transition methods used by the developer at that time. Further, Planner Enger stated that the City had been clear that this project south of Muirfield should not be used as a reason for extending multiple residential in any other area of this project. In particular, at that time, reference had been made to the site upon which Muirfield was now proposed. Planner Enger stated that three other properties within this area had similar assessments to those levied against the property under consideration. Planner Enger stated that it would be the decision of the City to determine whether this project stood on own merits and whether a valid reason for a Comprehensive Guide Plan Change had been made by proponent. He pointed out that the most valid reason was that the area was surrounded by many unique services, including the Community Center, Prairie View Elementary School, several parks, including Round Lake Community Park, and other community facilities. A reason for allowing the Comprehensive Guide Plan Change would be that as many families as possible should be allowed and the opportunity of use of all of these services within this • area. Hallett asked for examples of other projects where by the City had approved changes from Low to Medium Density Residential. Planner Enger reviewed several of such proposals. Hallett stated that he felt there were limited advantages to the City by approving this project. He stated that the City would have 20 additional families living close to the facilities in the area, and that 20 more families would be available to split the cost of assessments for the property under review. He questioned whether this was adequate reason for approving a Guide Plan Change. Marhula asked other members of the Commission if 20 lots removed from this project, possibly turned into open space, would provide a better plan for the City. Acting Chairman Torjesen stated that the approved density for this area was 2.5 units per acre as a maximum. He stated that he felt a precedent may be set for other areas within the community to be allowed a density greater than 2.5 units per acre if this project was approved without adequate justification for the proposed Comprehensive Guide Plan Change. He stated that he felt if the City believed the 2.5 units was too small an amount of density for such projects that the appropriate process would be to change the densities within the Comprehensive Guide Plan, not make this project a precedent setting situation for such higher densities within the community. Acting Chairman Torjesen stated that he also felt the changes made in the Muirfield proposal had resulted in a typical single family subdivision, eliminating some of the reasons which the City considered in the review of a Comprehensive Guide Plan Change. He stated that he agreed . with Gartner that these changes had not resulted in better plan for this property. In response to Marhula's questions regarding elimination of 20 lots to bring the project into compliance with the Comprehensive Guide Plan densities, Acting Chairman Torjesen stated that he did not necessarily feel that removal of 20 lots would improve the plan. However, he re-emphasized Planning Commission Minutes 6 September 24, 1984 the opinion that this was not an appropriate way in which to raise the density levels of the Comprehensive Guide Plan. He stated that to set precedent would be inappropriate, whereas to amend the Comprehensive Guide Plan densities with reason and study would be appropriate. Mr. Putnam stated that they had endeavored to amend the plan according to the Staff Reports, Planning Commission, Council, and neighborhood concerns. He stated that he felt the project remained basically the same as originally reviewed and presented, but that lot sizes had been changed according to the requests of these various groups. Mr. Putnam stated that the change in the plat would now result in higher costs for the lots which would have previously been available at a lower price. Mr. Putnam stated that other projects to the south of Muirfield had provided transition to existing neighborhoods. One such project had been approved at approximately four units per acre, and another had been approved at six to seven units per acre. Both of these projects had been guided for Low Density Residential development, with a maximum density of 2.5 units per acre. He stated that he felt the Muirfield project provided transition to existing neighborhoods of Sterling Fields and Hidden Ponds as proposed. Mr. Bob Thurk, 6991 Boyd Avenue, stated that he felt the density was too high for this project. He stated that he had recently attended a meeting at the school at which time he had been told that the school was expanding very • quickly and would soon be overcrowded in the elementary grades. Mr. Thurk also expressed concern regarding the potential for setting precedent for other developments to be allowed a higher density than the Comprehensive Guide Plan proposed. He stated that he felt the Comprehensive Guide Plan would be in jeopardy if this project was approved as proposed. Mr. Robert Woodruff, 18042 Valley View Road, stated that he had moved into the Hidden Ponds area because the lots were slightly larger than other areas of the community. He stated that he agreed with Mr. Thurk regarding the danger of setting precedent for higher density within low density single family areas of the community. Gartner asked if, as a practical matter, people would purchase lots on a wetland area, as shown in the southeast portion of the site. Mr. Putnam stated that the area shown for ponding would be dry most of the time and that the storm sewer system would handle the majority of the storm water flow to a piping system instead of above-ground storage. Mr. Putnam added that it had been his experience that people do buy lots along ponding and natural areas for aesthetic purposes. Schuck stated that he agreed with Gartner regarding the absence of innovative design within this revised project. He stated that he appreciated the business problems of the proponent; however, he did not feel that proponents had provided adequate justification for the proposed Comprehensive Guide Plan Change beyond the existing and surrounding amenities of the site. • Johannes stated that he concurred with other Commissioners that this project was not as innovative as the previous project proposal . He stated that he had agreed that as many people as possible should be allowed to take advantage of the amenities in the area and that there was sufficient reason • Planning Commission Minutes 7 September 24, 1984 for a Comprehensive Guide Plan Change in this case. Johannes agreed that if 20 units were eliminated from the plan, the project would not be improved to anyone's benefit. He stated that he generally supported the project. Hallett stated that he did not see any advantages to the City in adopting a Guide Plan Change for this project. MOTION 1: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Schuck, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--6-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Schuck, to recommend to the City Council as follows: The Planning Commission suggests that the City Council not adopt the following recommendation relative to the Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential for approximately 25 acres for the Muirfield development based upon the following reasons--1) The proponent has not provided adequate justification for the Comprehensive Guide Plan Change; and 2) Without adequate justification for the proposed Comprehensive Guide Plan Change, a precedent • could be set in the Low Density Residential areas allowing up to 3.08 units per acre for other similarly situated projects. Notwithstanding the foregoing suggestion, because of the requirement of State Statute that a City Council may adopt an amendment to the Comprehensive Guide Plan only after receipt of a positive recommendation of a majority of the Planning Commission, it is hereby recommended that the request by Tandem Corporation for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential for approximately 25 acres of the project known as Muirfield, be approved, based upon the revised plans dated September 15, 1984, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated September 21, 1984. Motion carried-4-2-0 (Marhula and Johannes against) MOTION 3: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Schuck, to recommend to the City Council denial of the request by Tandem Corporation for Planned Unit Development District Review, with variances, and Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5, for approximately 11.0 acres and from Rural to R1-9.5 for approximately 25 acres, for single family residential development to be known as Muirfield, based on revised plans dated September 15, 1984, subject to the findings of the Staff Report dated September 21, 1984. Marhula asked whether the Planning Commission actions on the remainder of • the requests by proponent would have an impact on final action by the Council, if the Council determined that the Comprehensive Guide Plan Change was appropriate for this project. Planner Enger stated that the impact of other recommendations by the Planning Commission would not be the same as the impact from a Planning Commission action on the Comprehensive Guide Plan Planning Commission Minutes 8 September 24, 1984 Change, based on Statutory requirements. He pointed out that the zoning districts requested were not in conflict with the land uses shown on the Comprehensive Guide Plan, or proposed by the Comprehensive Guide Plan change. Gartner stated that, if the Comprehensive Guide Plan showed Medium Density Residential development for this site, or if the Comprehensive Guide Plan Change had been justified by proponent, she would have no objection to the zoning district changes requested by proponent. Hallett stated that he concurred. Acting Chairman Torjesen stated that he felt the total design was out of conformity with the Comprehensive Guide Plan, in general. He added that, whereas he felt the plan had shown sensitivity on the north and west toward existing single family residential developments, the implication was that, on the property to the east would be requesting multiple family residential development, also, even though that property was also guided for Low Density Residential development. Marhula stated that he felt it would be possible, due to the topography of the site to the east, that single family detached units would be inappropriate as a type of development for that land. He stated that he felt the topography, itself, may present a good case for multiple • residential development for the property to the east and emphasized that the City would have to review this project, when presented, based upon its own merits. Motion carried--4-2-0 (Marhula and Johannes against) MOTION 4; Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Schuck, to recommend to the City Council denial of the request by Tandem Corporation for Preliminary Plat of 36 acres for single family residential development, to be known as Muirfield, based on revised plans dated September 15, 1984, subject to the findings of the Staff Report dated September 21, 1984. Gartner stated that she felt this plat was less interesting and innovative than the originally proposed plat for the property, but that if the proposed Comprehensive Guide Plan Change were appropriate, she would not have difficulty with approval of the plat as proposed. Acting Chairman Torjesen stated that he felt the plat lay out, without consideration for the Comprehensive Guide Plan, was a good one, and that he felt it dealt with the connection of neighborhoods in an appropriate manner. He stated that felt the plat could possibly be "loosened up" a bit. Marhula asked Acting Chairman Torjesen if he was concerned that the project be in compliance with the Zoning Districts requested, or whether his . concerns were with the density of the project. Acting Chairman Torjesen stated that he felt the plan should meet the density allowed of 2.5 units per acre. Marhula stated that he felt placing a portion of the property into open space to meet the density requirements of Low Density Residential would not be allowing the property to develop to its highest and best use. • Planning Commission Minutes 9 September 24, 1984 He stated that open space, in particular, would be inappropriate in this area of the community due to the proximity of other parks in this neighborhood. Acting Chairman Torjesen reiterated his earlier concern that a change in the densities of the Comprehensive Guide Plan should be accomplished by City policy, not by a single project. Motion carried--4-2-0 (Marhula and Johannes against) MOTION 5: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Schuck, to recommend to the City Council a finding of no significant impact for the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the Muirfield Development by Tandem Corporation. Motion carried--6-0-0 C. GOLF RIDGE, by Golf Ridge, Inc. Request for Preliminary Plat of 0.473 acre into one lot for single family residential development. Location: Northeast corner of Bennett Place and County Road R. A public hearing. Proponents for this project had contacted Planning Staff prior to the meeting requesting withdrawal of the project for review at this time. • MOTION: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Marhula, to close the public hearing and return the item to proponent, without prejudice. Motion carried--6-0-0 D. SUPERAMERICA. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to C- Hwy and Preliminary Plat of 1.35 acres for Service Station/Convenience Store. Location: Southwest quadrant of County Road #4 and Highway #5. A public meeting. Mr. Greg Gustafson, representing SuperAmerica, reviewed the site plan and site characteristics of the project with the Planning Commission. Planner Enger reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report of September 21, 1984. Acting Chairman Torjesen asked that the letter received from Mr. Steven Beck, Eden Prairie Family Physicians, be included as part of the permanent record for this project. Mr. Beck's letter expressed concern regarding the potential of the landscaping to block view of the sign for their property to the south of the proposed SuperAmerica site. Gartner asked if the landscaping proposed would possibly block sight lines, or cause traffic difficulties for Highway #5 or County Road #4. Planner • Enger responded that the Planning Staff would need to review the landscaping very carefully at the time of its final submission prior to building permit issuance for this purpose. Hallett asked if there would still be full access available to this site • Planning Commission Minutes 10 September 24, 1984 from Terry Pine Drive in view of the fact that direct access from the south from County Road #4 would be eliminated in the future. Staff responded that there would be full access from Terry Pine Drive. Mr. Steven Beck, Eden Prairie Family Physicians, located south of the project, stated that he would be willing to work with the proponents regarding this concern of potential blockage of their sign due to landscaping. Mr. Gustafson responded that he, too, felt the matter could be handled privately between two individuals. Marhula asked if Terry Pine Drive had been completely constructed. Planner Enger responded that the cul-de-sac had been completed. Marhula asked if site plans were available on any of the other sites within this vicinity, in particular within the commercial Planned Unit Development to the west. He stated that he was concerned that the driveways and access situations for the properties involved be appropriately planned. Planner Enger responded that this site plan for the entire area had been previously reviewed and that access questions had been answered. The SuperAmerica site, as proposed, fit in well with the other commercial uses in the vicinity with respect to access. Acting Chairman Torjesen asked if access to the cul-de-sac had been shown in the original SuperAmerica plan. Planner Enger responded that it had been • shown. Acting Chairman Torjesen asked about parking on the site. Mr. Steve Amik, representing SuperAmerica, responded that the parking shown on the east side of the site had been designated for employee purposes. Acting Chairman Torjesen suggested that parking could be located closer to the building for customers. MOTION 1: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Marhula, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--6-0-0 MOTION 2• Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Schuck, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Superamerica for Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Highway for 1.35 acres for a service station/convenience store, based on plans dated August 10, 1984, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated September 21, 1984, with the following additions: Under recommendation #1b, add the following "and not to conflict with sight lines from County Road #4 or Highway #5;" and add a recommendation Rd stating, "Meet with property owners to the south to mitigate issues regarding visibility of the signage for the property to the south." Motion carried--6-0-0 MOTION 3: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Schuck, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Superamerica for Preliminary Plat of 1.35 • Planning Commission Minutes 11 September 24, 1984 acres into one lot for a service station/convenience store, based on plans dated August 10, 1984, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated September 21, 1984, with the following additions: Under recommendation #lb, add the following "and not to conflict with sight lines from County Road #4 or Highway #5;" and add a recommendation Rd stating, "Meet with property owners to the south to mitigate issues regarding visibility of the signage for the property to the south." Motion carried--6-0-0 E. COMPUTER DEPOT, by Wilson Ridge Joint Venture. Request for Zoning District Amendment within I-2 Zoning District for Office/Warehouse use on 5.42 acres. Location: North Valley View Road, east of Highway #169. A public meeting. Mr. Dennis Doyle, representing Wilson Ridge Joint Venture, reviewed the overall plan for the Wilson Ridge Development. Mr. Daryll Anderson, architect for proponent, explained the location and site plan features of the proposed Computer Depot project. He explained that Computer Depot was a "high-tech" company. Mr. Doyle stated that they felt the Computer Depot was in compliance and compatible with the approved uses for the overall Wilson Ridge site. He • added that they had discussed the project with the Enbloms, owners of the single family home to the east of the property and that the Enbloms felt the project was suitable for the area. Planner Enger reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report of September 21, 1984, with the Planning Commission. He pointed out that the approval for this site had included a requirement that it be mostly office in character. Further, the approved Comprehensive Guide Plan Change for this site had been based on the fact that business uses allowed would be incubator businesses, which would provide for cross-fertilization of services and uses within the area. Planner Enger pointed out that there was not much space available within the project to turn over as office, and still accommodate the appropriate amount of parking necessary for office use. Also, additional parking for this site, should it be converted to office space, would eliminate the majority of the green space for the parcel. Hallett asked if Wilson Learning Center had approved of this project as well . Mr. Doyle responded that Wilson Learning Center was in favor of this project and that it had been reviewed by Wilson's Board of Directors prior to presentation to the City of Eden Prairie. Johannes asked what the ceiling height for the warehouse section of the project would be. Mr. Doyle responded that it would be fourteen to sixteen feet in height. Johannes stated that he did not feel it mattered so much what activities were taking place in the building as it did what the • exterior appearance of the building was. He stated that he was more concerned with breaking up the exterior walls to make the structure appear to be more office in character. Marhula stated that he felt the Computer Depot proposal was a very • Planning Commission Minutes 12 September 24, 1984 attractive project; however, he stated that he was not sure it met the original intent of the Planned Unit Development approved for the Wilson Ridge development. Acting Chairman Torjesen stated that, with the Wilson Ridge proposal , the City had been asked to consider changing one of its prime office sites to allow industrial use. He stated that he felt that what was involved for this site was an approval of a hybrid use which was more office in nature, not a typical office warehouse use found in the average I-2 District of the City. Acting Chairman Torjesen expressed concern that proponents have a clear understanding of this approval of the Wilson Ridge Planned Unit Development and that they not be mistaken about how the other property within the project had been approved. Johannes stated that he felt the previously approved buildings for site two provided the City with a less known quantity than was being shown for Computer Depot. The buildings had been proposed for speculative leasing uses. However, this building's owner and user were known. He stated that he preferred this project to the previous project, pointing out that, for example, there were only four truck dock doors within this proposal compared to many more truck dock doors in the previously approved site plan for the property. Hallett stated that he concurred with Johannes in that he was less concerned with the activities inside the building than he was with its • appearance being more office in character. He stated that he felt more glass on the exterior walls on the building and better landscaping on the site would improve the appearance of the project greatly. Mr. Anderson pointed out that the mechanical equipment for the structure would be screened with architecturally compatible materials. He also reviewed the details of other exterior elements of the building with the Commission. Marhula stated that he was most concerned with the east-facing side of the structure along Flying Cloud Drive. He suggested that a proof-of-parking plan be drafted to show how much green space would be eliminated with a conversion of the warehouse portion of the site to office usage. Acting Chairman Torjesen pointed out that the originally approved site plan for this property included 66,000 square feet of structure, whereas this proposal showed 76,000 square feet of floor area. He questioned the advantage of this change to the overall development. MOTION: Motion was made by Schuck, seconded by Gartner, to continue the public hearing for Computer Depot to the October 15, 1984, Planning Commission meeting, and return the item to proponent for revisions. The Commission discussed their concerns for the project, which included the • following: the elevations of the east-facing portion of the structure along Flying Cloud Drive should be more office in character; clarification of the space usage within the structure; parking; landscaping and screening; reactions, in writing from Wilson Learning Center and the Enblom family. Motion carried--6-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes 13 September 24, 1984 i F. PRIMETECH II, by Prime Development. Request for Planned Unit Development District Review of 20.0 acres; Zoning District Change from Rural to Office, Commercial-Regional-Service, and I-2 for 4.0 acres; and Preliminary Plat of 4.0 acres into one lot for construction of an office, a day care center, and an office/service structure. Location: North of Shady Oak Road, East of City West Parkway. A public hearing. Mr. Ron Erickson, architect for proponent, reviewed the site plan and site characteristics with the Planning Commission. Planner Enger reviewed the findings and recommendations of the September 21, 1984, Staff Report. A suggestion made within the Staff Report included "flip-flopping" the building and the orientations of the uses on the site. Hallett asked proponents what their opinion was regarding the "flip- flopping" of the structure and play area. Mr. Erickson responded that they had reviewed this suggestion and were amenable to either site design. Marhula asked if children would be dropped off, or if the parents would be required to park and bring the children into the buildings. Mr. Erickson responded that the building had been designed for a drop-off situation. Acting Chairman Torjesen expressed concern for the potential of other uses within the Primetech area being routed through the day care center until • direct access to City West Parkway north of the day care center site had been accomplished. Marhula suggested the construction of a pedestrian island within the parking lot so that the children would be able to cross the parking lot when necessary to other cars in a safe situation. Mr. Erickson stated that he would be willing to work with Staff to mitigate the situation regarding possible through traffic through the day care center site prior to construction of the loop road through the Primetech project in the future. He stated that they would prefer approximately two years instead of eighteen months to accomplish the private loop road through the overall Primetech development. Acting Chairman Torjesen reiterated concern regarding possible through traffic through the day care center site. He stated that he did not feel it would be appropriate to even allow such traffic on a temporary basis. Acting Chairman Torjesen suggested that perhaps the loop road could be eliminated as a requirement at this time; however, the solution to appropriate traffic circulation should be solved prior to any additional development within Phase II of the Primetech property. Other Commissioners concurred. 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 Schuck, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--6-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes 14 September 24, 1984 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Marhula, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Prime Development for Planned Unit Development District Review of 20.0 acres and Zoning District Change from Rural to Commercial-Regional-Service for approximately one acre for a day care center, based on plans dated August 24, 1984, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated September 21, 1984. Motion carried--6-0-0 MOTION 3: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Marhula, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Prime Development for Preliminary Plat of approximately four acres into one lot for a day care center, based on plans dated August 24, 1984, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated September 21, 1984. Motion carried--6-0-0 V. OLD BUSINESS • None. VI. NEW BUSINESS None. VII. PLANNER'S REPORT None. VIII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Gartner, seconded by Johannes. Acting Chairman Torjesen adjourned the meeting at 12:25 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Kate Karnas Recording Secretary