Loading...
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