Planning Commission - 10/15/1984 - Special AGENDA
Special Meeting
Monday, October 15, 1984
Room 5, School District Offices
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
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
III. MINUTES
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
(7:40) A. CARDINAL CREEK VILLAGE, by Chimo Development Corporation. Request
for Planned Unit Development Concept Review and Environmental
Assessment Worksheet for 350 units of multiple family development on
40.7 acres. Location: North of Cardinal Creek, east of Baker Road.
A continued public hearing.
(7:45) B. 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 continued public meeting.
(8:30) C. EDEN PRAIRIE APARTMENTS, by David Ames. Request for Zoning District
Amendment within RM-2.5 District and Preliminary Plat of 6.47 acres
for 108-unit apartment building. Location: North of Valley View
Road, West of Edenvale Golf Club. A public hearing.
(9:15) D. DIGIGRAPHICS SYSTEMS CORPORATION, by Welsh Construction. Request
for Planned Unit Development District Amendment of 60.85 acres,
Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 for 5.75 acres; and
Preliminary Plat of 10.91 acres into one lot for a corporate
headquarters, office, research, assembly, storage facility.
Location: Northeast quadrant of Valley View Road and Highway #169.
A public hearing.
• Agenda
October 15, 1984
Page 2
(10:00) E. CITY WEST BUSINESS CENTER PHASES III & IV, by Ryan Construction.
Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment of City West
Planned Unit Development and Planned Unit Development District
Review of 15.91 acres; Zoning District Change from Office to I-2 for
12.63 acres; and Preliminary Plat of 15.91 acres into two lots and
one outlot. Location: North of Shady Oak Road, West of City West
Parkway. A public hearing.
V. OLD BUSINESS
VI. NEW BUSINESS
A. Joint Meeting With City Council
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
NOTE: The times listed above are tentative, only. The items may be on the agenda
significantly later, or earlier, than shown.
MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, October 15, 1984
School District Offices, Room 5
7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman William Bearman, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett,
Dennis Marhula, Ed Schuck (9:15 p.m.), Hakon Torjesen
MEMBER ABSENT: Stan Johannes
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 Torjesen, 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 24, 1984, Planning Commission meeting as printed.
Motion carried--4-0-1 (Chairman Bearman abstained)
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. CARDINAL CREEK VILLAGE, by Chimo Development Corporation. Request
for Planned Unit Development Concept Review and Environmental
Assessment Worksheet for 350 units of multiple family development on
40.7 acres. Location: North of Cardinal Creek, east of Baker Road.
A continued public hearing.
Prior to the meeting, Planning Staff had received a letter from proponents
requesting continuance of the item to the October 29, 1984, Planning
Commission meeting to allow them more time to hold another neighborhood
Planning Commission Minutes 2 October 15, 1984
meeting regarding the proposal. Revised plans would be submitted to the
Planning Staff for review after the additional neighborhood input.
Mr. Greg Kellenberger, representing proponents, stated that the neighborhood
meeting would be held at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, October 23, 1984, at the
Forest Hills Elementary School. However, Mr. Kellenberger said the notice
had stated that the postponement would be to the October 29, 1984, Planning
Commission meeting, not the November 13, 1984, meeting.
Mr. Floyd Siefferman, 6997 Edgebrook Place, asked if there was any way the
residents could be notified of the change since the notice from the
proponents stated that the meeting would be reconvened on October 29th, not
November 13th. Staff stated that notices would be sent in time from City
Hall making note of the difference in dates.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett, to continue the public
hearing for Cardinal Creek Village to the November 13, 1984, Special
Planning Commission meeting.
Motion carried--5-0-0
B. 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 continued public meeting.
The Planning Commission continued this from the September 24, 1984, meeting
in order to allow the proponent time to revise the plan so that it appeared
substantially office in nature. Proponents had provided Staff with revised
building elevations of a preliminary nature that could provide the desired
office appearance.
Mr. Dan Russ, Welsh Construction, reviewed the project with the Commission,
explaining that the building would be a two-story structure of approximately
76,800 square feet. He stated that he had received a letter from Mr. Bob
Brown, Wilson Learning Center, stating Wilson Learning's agreement with the
project and their satisfaction with the design. Mr. Darryl Anderson,
architect for proponents, explained the revised building features and
materials to be used on the exterior. He stated that the major difference
was that the building would be more office-like in appearance. Mr. Russ
added that Computer Depot's growth in the future would be centered around
the office and repair portions of their business, as opposed to the storage
areas.
Planner Enger stated that Staff had reviewed some of the revisions proposed
in the Computer Depot site. However, at Staff's last meeting with
proponent, all revisions had not been made. Planner Enger asked proponents
how much square footage had been assigned to each of the uses within the
structure. Mr. Russ responded that approximately 21,000 square feet would
be used for office, with the remainder being used for storage and assembly.
He added that the amount of square footage to be used for assembly had not
yet been finalized. Planner Enger stated that he raised the question due to
Planning Commission Minutes 3 October 15, 1984
the number of parking spaces needed for the various uses within the
structure. He stated that for an assembly use three spaces per 1,000 square
feet of gross floor area were necessary, whereas for warehousing or storage
space one space per 2,000 square feet of gross floor area were required.
Planner Enger stated that, as a practical matter, there would be a
limitation as to how much assembly would be allowed in the building based on
the amount of parking space available on the site. The current plan showed
251 parking spaces available. Planner Enger pointed out that Staff would
review the site plan in great detail at the time of request for building
permit to determine the necessary amount of parking spaces based upon the
exact square footages of use assigned at that time within the structure. He
added that exterior materials and the amount of open space would also be
reviewed at that time.
Chairman Bearman asked how much additional parking would be needed if the
majority of the storage area was converted to assembly space. Planner Enger
responded that approximately 50 per cent additional parking may be
necessary, depending on the allocation of uses within a structure. This
could change the site plan drastically from what the Planning Commission was
currently reviewing. Chairman Bearman stated that he felt the proponents
should be aware that the Planning Commission would take action only on the
plan in front of them for review at this time and that, should a plan
revision be necessary requiring 50 per cent additional parking over and
• above what was currently shown, this would constitute a major change in the
site plan and require additional Planning Commission and Council review.
Chairman Bearman asked proponents what the height of the structure would be
overall . Mr. Anderson responded that the building would be 21 feet in
height overall . He stated that previously the building was 16 feet in
height.
Planner Enger stated that the exterior materials for the revised plan
included cement panel board, tinted glass, and porcelain steel panels. He
stated that it was Staff's opinion that this was a large improvement in the
types of materials shown for the original plan.
Planner Enger stated that there were several Staff suggestions for revision
of the plan before the Commission at this time, which included the
following:
1. The earthen berm on the south elevation should be higher than shown
on the current plans.
2. Samples of the exterior materials should be submitted for review
against City Codes and Building Codes.
3. The landscape plan needed revision to the plant material sizes shown
on the plan and more materials were needed throughout the site.
• 4. The south elevation of the building should be modified to include
the cement panel board and a two-foot wide strip continued across
the top of the building.
5. The concrete panel around the center of the building should be
Planning Commission Minutes 4 October 15, 1984
raised and continued around the south elevation to the exterior of
the two dock doors of the building.
6. Berming should be shown on the site plan and sight lines presented
to indicate effectiveness of screening of the parking areas and
loading areas.
Hallett asked what type of internal circulation pathways were available
within the project. Mr. Anderson responded that the original trail system
shown within the Wilson Ridge project would be continued through this
project. Hallett asked if there would be a connection between the pathway
along Highway #169 and the parking lot area at the southwest corner of the
site. Mr. Anderson stated that one was not shown; however, they would
certainly be willing to add one. Planner Enger added that the trails along
Flying Cloud Drive would be constructed as part of the road project by the
City. He suggested that proponents also include a trail connection from the
front door of the structure to the east to connect to the trail proposed
along Flying Cloud Drive.
Hallett asked proponents where they would add parking, if it became
necessary to do so. Mr. Anderson pointed to several areas on the site that
were considered for future parking. Hallett asked if this would result in
loss of existing trees, or a reduction in the amount of landscaping. Mr.
Anderson stated that the lot coverage would not change, that it would be
typical of any I-2 District site with 30 per cent Floor Area Ratio.
Chairman Bearman asked if there would be enough room on this site for
parking, if the structure had been planned, and/or was converted to
completely office, considering the proposed footprint of the building.
Staff responded that there would be enough room for 50 per cent office and
50 per cent warehouse within the structure in order to meet the parking
needs. Chairman Bearman asked if proponents had any idea of their future
office needs and whether the current proposed plan would meet those needs
and the resultant parking needs. Mr. Paul Larson, Vice President of
Computer Depot, stated that currently Computer Depot had 50 employees. He
stated that future plans included up to 65 employees, but very little more,
if any. Chairman Bearman asked if he knew how much additional office space
would be needed as a result of increased employees. Mr. Larson responded
that perhaps an additional 10,000 square feet of office, as a maximum, would
be required. Chairman Bearman asked how much assembly space would be added
in the future. Mr. Larson responded that additional assembly space of 6,000
to 10,000 square feet may be necessary in the future.
Hallett stated that, with only 60 to 65 employees total, he would prefer
that proponents not construct the entire 251 parking spaces on the site at
this time but rather that they leave the parking areas in green space,
maintaining the additional parking areas only as proof-of-parking at this
time.
• Torjesen stated that one of the City's concerns for this project would be
planning for the buildings future use. He stated that, over a building's
lifetime, there may be many tenants and uses housed within the structure.
The City would need to ascertain whether adequate parking facilities would
be available for each of these uses.
Planning Commission Minutes 5 October 15, 1984
Torjesen asked if it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to
make a "maximum" recommendation regarding the amount of office to be allowed
within this structure based upon the availability of parking. Staff
responded that the Building Department, when issuing an occupancy permit,
would check on the uses and the amount of each use within the structure. If
any inconsistencies were found at that time, Planning Staff would be
notified and if necessary, Planning Staff would return the item to the
Planning Commission for review.
Torjesen stated that, in general, he was pleased with the revised plans. He
stated that they represented more of what he had thought the Planning
Commission had in mind upon approval of the overall Wilson Ridge Planned
Unit Development.
Mr. Daniel Enblom, 10610 Valley View Road, representing the Enblom Estate,
stated that Welsh Construction had been keeping his family well informed of
the progress on this site. He stated that, in general, the opinion of the
family was that this was a better building.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett, to recommend to the City
Council, approval of the request for Zoning District Amendment within the I-
. 2 Zoning District for an office/warehouse use on 5.42 acres for Computer
Depot, based on revised plans dated October 12, 1984, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Reports of September 22, 1984, and October 12,
1984, with the following additions: 1) Landscaping and architectural
treatment for the property be amended as recommended by Planning Staff at
the Planning Commission meeting of October 15, 1984; and 2) An internal
pathway be located from the front of the building to the pathway to be built
along Flying Cloud Drive, with another internal pathway connection from the
southwest corner of the property, through the site to the internal sidewalk
system of the property.
Torjesen stated that he felt, if the plan changed substantially, the
proponents should be required to return to the Planning Commission and City
Council for additional review. Torjesen stated that he felt it should be
clear to the proponents that the Planning Commission was making a
recommendation on a specific plan. For example, any change within the
structure affecting the availability of parking would require additional
review by the Commission and Council . Other Commissioners concurred.
Gartner stated that she felt any "extra" parking spaces should be left as
green space, with the areas designated as proof of parking for the current
plan. Hallett agreed.
Motion carried--5-0-0
C. EDEN PRAIRIE APARTMENTS, by David Ames. Request for Zoning District
Amendment within RM-2.5 District and Preliminary Plat of 6.47 acres
for 108-unit apartment building. Location: North of Valley View
Road, West of Edenvale Golf Club. A public hearing.
Mr. David Ames, proponent, reviewed the site features and site plan
Planning Commission Minutes 6 October 15, 1984
characteristics of the project with the Planning Commission. He stated that
the major goal of the project design was to preserve as many trees as
possible on the site. He stated that by locating the structure as shown,
only thirteen trees would be lost due to construction. Mr. Ames stated that
he would prefer to use redwood siding on the structure, instead of brick as
suggested by Staff. He added that he would also prefer to maintain a flat
roof for this structure instead of a pitched roof. Mr. Ames stated that his
only other concern was the Staff suggestion regarding the recommendation to
lower the building by twelve feet in order to provide a pitched roof which
would be screened by the height of the trees. He stated that he felt the
flat roof, with the height of the trees, would be sufficient screening for
the structure.
Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff
Report of October 12, 1984.
Torjesen asked if lowering of the building by twelve feet would make a
better overall site plan for the project. Staff responded that additional
fill would be available for the parking areas. Therefore the overall
grading of the site would be improved. Regarding the pitched roof for the
structure, Staff stated that there were two multiple residential projects
within the area which did have pitched roofs, adding to the residential
character of those structures.
• Hallett asked how many trees would be lost with lowering of the structure by
an additional twelve feet. Mr. Tom Zumwalde, architect for proponent,
responded that many more trees would be lost with this revised grading plan.
He estimated that approximately two-thirds of the trees would be lost, as
opposed to only thirteen trees. Planner Enger stated that the original plan
for this site, based upon its parking arrangement, showed many more trees
being lost than were currently shown on the plan before the Planning
Commission.
Torjesen asked how visible the structure would be from Valley View Road.
Staff responded that there was a 50-foot elevation change between the
elevation of the road and the proposed elevation of the building.
Therefore, from Valley View Road, the structure would not be very visible.
Planner Enger stated that he felt it was an overstatement to say that the
revised grading suggested by Staff would result in two-thirds of the trees
being lost. He reviewed the site grading proposed with the Planning
Commission, indicating that several more trees would be lost, but not two-
thirds of those upon the site.
Chairman Bearman and Hallett stated that they were not necessarily concerned
that the building have a pitched roof in this situation.
Marhula stated that he felt perhaps a compromise position would be available
for the grading of the property.
Marhula asked what the status of Valley View Road improvement was at this
time. He stated that he felt the access situation to Valley View Road for
this site was currently not a good one. Planner Enger responded that the
feasibility study for improvement of Valley View Road was due to be
completed within 30 days, at which time Staff would have more information.
. Planning Commission Minutes 7 October 15, 1984
Marhula asked if it was known whether additional right-of-way be needed and
whether there were plans to straighten out the curve in this vicinity of
Valley View Road. Staff responded that there may be need for additional
right-of-way at the location of Golf View Drive and Valley View Road for
this purpose. However, the Engineering Staff, in its review of this
project, did not feel it would effect this project.
Hallett asked how this project would affect the property owners to the
northeast in particular with respect to the extension of Golf View Drive.
Planner Enger stated that the owners of the property to the northeast would
be interested in receiving access from this new portion of Golf View Drive.
There were very few options available for accessing this piece of property.
Hallett asked if it would be necessary to extend Golf View Drive into a loop
as shown on the approved Edenvale Planned Unit Development plan. Staff
responded that this was an approved plan from the early 1970's and that this
was the first time, since that approval, that the question of the road had
been raised. He stated that the Planning Commission may choose to re-
evaluate the need for this road at any time.
Hallett expressed concern regarding the open space plan and the amount of
land dedicated for open space within the overall Edenvale Planned Unit
Development. He asked whether it would be possible for the open space to be
• developed. In particular, he expressed concern that with the looping of
Golf View Drive through the golf course, new owners of the golf course may
be tempted to develop the property as opposed to maintaining it as open
space for the project. Hallett stated that he felt the City should be
cautious about the potential for development of lands planned for open space
to Planned Unit Development approvals becoming developed property. He
stated that, if the City had approved a project based on the amount of
public open space, the City should be cautious also to insure that public
open space remain as public open space and not turn into private open space,
particularly with a facility such as a golf course.
Torjesen stated that he was concerned with density. He asked if it was
appropriate density to allow development of this property based upon the
amount of traffic that would be generated onto Valley View Road. Planner
Enger responded that this was a zoned site and had previously received
approval for a 96-unit apartment complex. He stated that the major
difference in the plan was the amount of preservation of open space with the
current plan over the previous plan. A configuration of this structure
saved many more trees than the previous plan had done. Planner Enger stated
that the difference in the number of units was a total of twelve but that,
in Staff's opinion, based upon the amount of preservation of trees and the
screening of the structure, an additional twelve units would be warranted.
Further, the amount of additional traffic at peak periods onto Valley View
Road would be insignificant.
Gartner stated that she felt this plan was an improvement over the
' previously approved plan for the property.
Mr. John Finch, 14120 Forest Hill Road, stated that he had lived in the City
for five years. He stated that he was appauled with what was happening in
the Edenvale area. He questioned whether a twelve-year old plan for this
Planning Commission Minutes 8 October 15, 1984
area would not now be outmoded and inappropriate for this neighborhood. Mr.
Finch expressed concern regarding the density proposed for this site. He
stated that he felt this area deserved to have parks and trails but instead
was developing this high density and light industrial. He stated that he
felt that the City was losing sight of what was trying to be accomplished in
this area for the residents and that the single family to multiple family
ratio was out of balance by approval of so many high density uses in the
vicinity.
Chairman Bearman asked Planner Enger to review the approved sites within the
Edenvale Planned Unit Development against the originally approved densities
for the project. Planner Enger reviewed each of the additions in the
Edenvale project, explaining the density approved for the site and then the
density actually built upon the site. In many cases, the density had been
decreased, as much as 50 per cent. Several of the sites had been developed
at the approved densities. And several of the sites had been approved at
densities between 10 and 30 per cent lower than the overall approved Planned
Unit Development for Edenvale.
Hallett asked if the Cash Park Fee for the entire Edenvale project had been
waived. Planner Enger responded that the Edenvale Planned Unit Development
was approved before the City required Cash Park Fees of developers. He
stated that this was also true of the large Preserve Planned Unit
• Development. In both cases, the City Council had reviewed the amount of
open space dedicated at that time for each of these large Planned Unit
Developments within the community. It was their determination that the
amount of open space dedicated or planned within these developments was
adequate to compensate for the Cash Park Fee requirement at that time being
imposed. Hallett stated that there were still many acres of the Edenvale
Planned Unit Development which had not been developed. Chairman Bearman
stated that he questioned whether the City could legally obtain Cash Park
Fees from the sites. He asked that Staff review this with the City Attorney
and report back to the Planning Commission.
Mr. George May, Attorney for Edenvale Golf Course owners, expressed concern
regarding the loop road configuration for Golf View Drive through the golf
course. He asked if there was any reason to implement the loop portion
through the golf course at this time. Staff responded that the only portion
of the road under consideration at this time would be within the borders of
the proposed Eden Prairie Apartment land use. Mr. May stated that the
Edenvale Golf Club owners were unalterably opposed to having a road cut
across the golf course. He stated that they also had a concern that
property adjacent to the golf course be fenced. This would prevent and
preclude any problems with children or course users trespassing on each
others property.
Mr. Bob Martinson, The Kerr Companies, stated that 50 per cent of his
project, Village Greens Condominiums, was located upon the Edenvale Golf
Course. He stated that he was interested in the golf course being able to
operate successfully and that he did not feel routing of the road through
the golf course across one of the tees would be appropriate. Mr. Martinson
stated that he felt traffic should not be dealt with lightly on this project
either. He stated that, from his experience, the traffic was a matter of
concern in this entire area. Mr. Martinson also asked what income group the
• Planning Commission Minutes 9 October 15, 1984
project was intended to serve. Mr. Ames responded that the project would
cost approximately six million dollars to construct. He stated that the
building would be for rental housing and would be built with housing
development revenue bonds. Rents for a one-bedroom apartment were expected
to be between $470 and $545 dollars per month; rents for two-bedroom
apartments were expected to be between $540 and $680 dollars per month.
Mr. Heber Stephens, 14267 Wedgeway Court, expressed concern regarding the
density of the project and of the overall Edenvale Planned Unit Development.
He also expressed concern regarding traffic on Valley View Road. Mr.
Stephens stated that he felt more concern should be given to the existing
single family residents in the area. He stated that he felt that the
sanctity of the golf course should be preserved.
Mr. Doug Rueter, 8750 Black Maple Drive, stated that he was a resident of
the Preserve, the other large Planned Unit Development within Eden Prairie.
He stated that he was concerned about the approval of so many high density
uses within these large Planned Unit Developments. Mr. Rueter stated that
he would understand if the owner of the golf course developed the property.
He added that he felt the Planning Commission and Council should get tougher
with the requirements for lower density within the community. Mr. Rueter
stated that he was running for Council and indicated that his position would
be against high density projects in the community.
• Mr. Rick Sitek, the golf pro at the Edenvale Golf Course, stated that he
felt the road connection of Golfview Drive concerned more people than those
within the proposed apartment complex. He stated that he felt it would have
a negative impact on the golf course itself.
Mr. Floyd Siefferman, Jr., 6997 Edgebrook Place, questioned why the City
would not stick with the previous 96 units approved.
Hallett stated that he was concerned about the road extension. Planner
Enger stated that the particular section of road shown with this proposal
was necessary to provide access to the property to the northeast. He
pointed out that, at this time, the only portion of the road before the
Planning Commission for review was that segment shown along the west border
of the Eden Prairie Apartment proposal . Hallett stated that it was obvious
that if the road was not looped there would be a long cul-de-sac up into the
northeast area of this neighborhood which would also not be desirable from a
public safety point of view.
Torjesen stated that the City must also pay attention to the rights of
property owners of undeveloped property and their right to develop the
property within legal boundaries. He asked what the life of a Planned Unit
Development was within City Code requirements. He questioned at what point
a Planned Unit Development would no longer be binding and whether it had
been stated anywhere that a Planned Unit Development would be scheduled for
• regular reviews as to its appropriateness based on an amount of time, or
changes in Code, etc. He added that he felt the Staff and proponent could
possibly come to a compromise position regarding the amount of grading to be
done on site. Marhula pointed out that the site had not been "zoned" for 96
units. However, there was an approved site plan for the property which
included 96 units.
• Planning Commission Minutes 10 October 15, 1984
Chairman Bearman stated that he did not feel there would be a visible
difference between this plan at 108 units or 96 units. He stated that the
plan for 96 units had been spread out more on the site and did not preserve
as many natural features of the site. Torjesen questioned the amount of
traffic impact that would result from the increased density. Planner Enger
stated that the increase would be insignificant.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Marhula, to close the public
hearing.
Motion carried--5-0-1 (Schuck abstained)
MOTION 2•
Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Gartner, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of David Ames for Zoning District change
from Rural to RM-2.5 for 6.47 acres for an apartment complex of 108 units
known as Eden Prairie Apartments, based on plans dated October 11, 1984,
subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated October 12, 1984,
with the following added conditions: 1) Developer and owner of the golf
• course should work together to determine the need and cost of fencing
between the two properties; 2) Exterior materials for the structure should
be changed to meet City Code requirements; 3) Item #4A of the Staff Report
be eliminated as a condition of approval .
Hallett asked if the City could require either party to fence the property
line between the apartment building and the golf course. Staff responded
that they would discuss the matter with the City Attorney. Chairman Bearman
recommended that the two parties work together to a mutual resolution of any
perceived problems on this matter.
Hallett stated that he was concerned about the matter of Cash Park Fees for
the large Planned Unit Developments within the community and asked that
Staff check into it further. He stated that he felt the Commission should
perhaps discuss this matter with the City Council.
Motion carried--4-1-1 (Torjesen against; Schuck abstained)
Torjesen stated that, while he felt the site plan was a good one, he felt
the project should be less dense, with a total of 96 units as previously
approved.
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Gartner, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of David Ames for Preliminary Plat of 6.47
• acres into one lot for a 108-unit apartment complex to be known as Eden
Prairie Apartments, based on plans dated October 11, 1984, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated October 12, 1984, with the
following added conditions: 1) Developer and owner of the golf course
should work together to determine the need and cost of fencing between the
two properties; 2) Exterior materials for the structure should be changed to
Planning Commission Minutes 11 October 15, 1984
meet City Code requirements; 3) Item #4A of the Staff Report be eliminated
as a condition of approval .
Motion carried--4-1-1 (Torjesen against; Schuck abstained)
MOTION 4:
Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Schuck, that Staff be directed to
review the appropriateness of not charging Cash Park Fees within the
Edenvale and Preserve large Planned Unit Developments in Eden Prairie, and
that it be determined whether the reasons for not charging Cash Park Fees at
this time are still valid.
Torjesen asked if there was a "sunset" clause within the City Code regarding
the amount of time a Planned Unit Development approval lasted, or if there
was a time limit on decisions for such a project, after which additional
review was required.
Torjesen asked whether it would be possible to determine the "public" nature
of the golf course within the Edenvale Planned Unit Development with respect
to dedicated open space in order that the future development of the property
as anything other than a golf course could be prevented, if necessary.
Staff responded that they would research this and report back to the
Commission.
• Motion carried--6-0-0
D. DIGIGRAPHICS SYSTEMS CORPORATION, by Welsh Construction. Request
for Planned Unit Development District Amendment of 60.85 acres and
Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 for 5.75 acres for a
corporate headquarters, office, research, assembly, storage
facility. Location: Northeast quadrant of Valley View Road and
Highway #169. A public hearing.
Mr. Dennis Doyle, Welsh Construction, reviewed the site plan with the
Planning Commission in context with the overall Wilson Ridge Planned Unit
Development, explaining how it fit within the approved plan. Mr. Paul Dunn,
Welsh Construction, reviewed specific details of the proposed site plan with
the Planning Commission. Mr. Dunn stated that they had reviewed this site
and its potential as an office site against several factors. It had been
their conclusion that the site was not best suited for a strictly office use
based upon several factors including:
1. Premiere office sites enjoy good access. This site is not easily
accessed.
2. Premiere office sites generally require good visibility. This site
is located back away from the Highway #169 visibility and is not in
clear vision of Valley View Road due to forestation of the property.
• 3. Office sites are generally located near other office sites. This
land use would be surrounded on the north and east by other
industrial uses and on the south by the Enblom property. To the
west would be a preservation area. Based upon this, their
Planning Commission Minutes 12 October 15, 1984
conclusion had been that this would not be a site with other similar
land uses surrounding it.
4. Traffic generated by an office building would be higher than that
generated by the type of structure proposed for Digigraphics.
Mr. Dunn stated that, with these factors in mind, the site had been
considered by the Wilson Ridge Joint Venture for a use such as Digigraphics
Corporate Headquarters. Mr. Dunn stated that the site was over ten acres in
size, and that he felt the amount of preservation area given ought to allow
the proponents to cut down some of the trees on this site. He added that it
was his understanding that the City could waive the right to restrict the
shoreland requirement for the property.
Mr. Vince McCondelle, Digigraphics, stated that their building was currently
located in Minnetonka. They were an information system business, dealing in
microproducts, and circuits.
Mr. Darryl Anderson, architect for proponents, reviewed the architectural
features of the site with the Planning Commission.
Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the October 12,
1984, Staff Report with the Commission.
. Schuck asked if proponents had considered use of underground parking for the
structure. Mr. Dunn responded that the costs of underground parking
facilities were prohibited. Schuck stated that he questioned whether this
was type of project envisioned with the approvals of the original Planned
Unit Development for the Wilson Ridge Joint Venture property. He stated
that plans shown, in his opinion, did not provide justification for as much
tree removal and loss of natural features as requested by the proponents.
Chairman Bearman asked how many acres within the City were available for
industrial development of the type proposed by Digigraphics. Staff
responded that it would be between 300 to 400 acres worth of property.
Bearman asked if this project met the criteria and concerns regarding Outlot
D of the Wilson Ridge Planned Unit Development. He added that he felt the
project was too large for the site and overpowered the site features.
Chairman Bearman stated that he felt the site needed to be treated with more
sensitivity due to the natural features inherant to the property.
Schuck stated that he knew Digigraphics was a growing company and that, even
though they were only using a portion of the building at this time, the
potential for growing into the remainder of the building was likely good.
However, he added that he felt it would be difficult for the Commission to
approve the remainder of the building on a speculative basis without knowing
more details involving the eventual needs of Digigraphics.
Torjesen stated that Staff had mentioned in their report several ways in
• which this building could be altered to preserve more trees on the site.
Mr. Dunn stated that he felt the site was too treed for purposes of
developing it to its highest and best use. Planner Enger suggested that an
appropriate alternative for the building as currently proposed would be to
treat the site much the same as the Lee Data site. Lee Data, he explained,
Planning Commission Minutes 13 October 15, 1984
•
had removed a wooded knoll because they were unable to accommodate it in
their site plan; however, they had replaced the existing trees of over
twelve inches in diameter, caliper inch for caliper inch, with new trees of
smaller diameter throughout the site. Planner Enger stated that perhaps
proponents could plant more natural vegetation towards the direction of the
creek to make the building blend in more with the natural site features. He
also suggested that the loading docks could be decreased in number and
better screened.
Hallett stated that he would like to see proponents work something out which
would be less dense and which would save more trees.
Torjesen stated that the natural features of the site seem to indicate that
this particular use and design of structure for this site was inappropriate.
Chairman Bearman stated that he felt the City needed to be cautious in
consideration of the use for this site in that should the site turn into a
more office-type use with the expansion of Digigraphics, or another user,
the amount of space needed for parking would increase to five spaces per
1,000 gross square feet of floor area.
Mr. McConnelle stated that he did agree with many of the suggestions and
observations of the Staff and the Planning Commission. He stated that he
would be willing to spend time with Staff to work out the questions of
redesign and preservation further.
Torjesen stated that perhaps it would not be in the City's best interest to
allow development of sites such as this with so many features requiring
preservation.
Hallett stated that he felt the site was too densely developed.
Schuck stated that he felt this was an excellent site and should be treated
with more sensitivity.
Torjesen stated that he felt proponents should explore alternative methods
of developing the site without as much grading and tree cutting.
Schuck stated that the City, in his opinion, was trying to be careful about
monitoring development and to make certain it would be appropriate not only
now, but in the future for Eden Prairie. He stated that he felt there were
many other places in the community for the small business to find rental
areas and therefore, the Digigraphics proposal for rental units may be
inappropriate in this location.
Chairman Bearman asked if Digigraphics felt the multiple tenant of their
site and building plan was necessary at this time.
Mr. Peter Enblom, 10610 Valley View Road, stated that many of the trees had
• already been removed from the site. He stated that he would like to see the
size of the building diminished.
Mr. Dan Emblom, 10610 Valley View Road, stated that he felt as many trees as
possible should be saved. He stated that he did not have any difficulty at
Planning Commission Minutes 14 October 15, 1984
all with the type of use proposed, but felt that preservation of the treed
area and the Nine-Mile Creek area should be a foremost concern.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Torjesen, seconded by Gartner, to continue the public
hearing to the October 29, 1984, Special Planning Commission meeting to
allow proponent to revise the plans according to the recommendations of the
Staff Report of October 12, 1984, and the recommendations of the Planning
Commission from the October 15, 1984, Planning Commission.
Motion carried--6-0-0
(Chairman Bearman left the meeting at 1:00 a.m.)
E. CITY WEST BUSINESS CENTER PHASES III & IV, by Ryan Construction.
Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment of City West
Planned Unit Development and Planned Unit Development District
Review of 15.91 acres; Zoning District Change from Office to I-2 for
12.63 acres; and Preliminary Plat of 15.91 acres into two lots and
one outlot. Location: North of Shady Oak Road, West of City West
Parkway. A public hearing.
• Mr. Pat Ryan, Ryan Construction, reviewed the proposal with the Planning
Commission, explaining the request for the Planned Unit Development Concept
Amendment and explained the advantages of the type of project for office
service use over a pure office use for this property. He pointed out that
with 75 per cent of the square footage of the project being office, and the
remainder being for storage/assembly space, the reduction in traffic would
be approximately 1,200 trips per day.
Planner Enger reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report
of October 12, 1984, with the Planning Commission.
Gartner, Hallett, and Marhula, stated that they were not as concerned with
the proposed change to the Planned Unit Development Concept for City West as
they were with the appropriateness of use for the site. Marhula added that
he did not feel this was a major change in proposed use within this Planned
Unit Development. He stated that he felt that while the proposed plan may
be different as in terms of its footprints and layout than the previously
approved plan for the site, the use proposed was basically the same.
Acting Chairman Torjesen stated that he felt it was imperative that changes
to plans be made with justification. He stated that he felt, in this case,
the change proposed had been substantiated by the facts that it was a change
which resulted in less dense use of the property. Acting Chairman Torjesen
questioned whether the "centerpiece" function of the previously approved
plan for this site would be lost with this type of plan as opposed to the
previously approved plan.
Mr. Ryan stated that the previous plan had 54 per cent impervious surface
coverage; the current plan had 81 per cent impervious surface coverage.
However, he stated that the height of the buildings from the previous plan
was not all in use as office. The structures had been designed with
Planning Commission Minutes 15 October 15, 1984
underground parking. In addition, the other plan oriented the buildings
more towards the pond to the north. He stated that attempt had been made to
orient as much of the buildings as possible towards the pond for the current
plan. He stated that, perhaps, additional work could be done to accomplish
this effect to a greater degree for the current plan.
Mr. Ryan stated that, based upon their experience, the amount of parking
required by the ordinance would not need to be built. He stated that they
would request to allow the extra parking area at this time to be left in
green space for proof of parking in the future if necessary.
Hallett asked if the pathway system would be part of this development. Mr.
Ryan responded that the pathway system was currently under construction, and
would be continued through this site.
The Commission and proponents discussed the plan in greater detail, making
suggestions and discussing ways in which the plan could be altered to
specifically take better advantage of views of the pond to the north.
Proponents asked if it would be possible to be scheduled for the November 6,
1984, Council meeting. The Planning Commission concurred that this would be
appropriate in this case.
• MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Schuck, to continue the public
hearing to the October 29, 1984, Planning Commission meeting, directing
Staff to publish the item for the November 6, 1984, City Council meeting.
Motion carried--5-0-0
V. OLD BUSINESS
None.
VI. NEW BUSINESS
A. Joint Meeting With City Council
The Planning Commission selected the following dates as possible for a joint
meeting with the City Council regarding the R1-9.5 Zoning District and with
the potential for a "high-tech" zoning district to be added to the City
Code:
Monday, November 19, 1984 Tuesday, November 27, 1984
Monday, December 3, 1984 Tuesday, December 11, 1984
Planning Commission Minutes 16 October 15, 1984
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
None.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Marhula, seconded by Schuck.
Acting Chairman Torjesen adjourned the meeting at 1:55 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kate Karnas
Recording Secretary