Loading...
Planning Commission - 03/11/1985 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, March 11, 1985 School Board Meeting Room 7:30 p.m. COMMISSION MEMBERS: Acting Chairman Ed Schuck, Julianne Bye, Christine Dodge, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett, Stan Johannes, Dennis Marhula STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Kate Karnas, Administrative Assistant Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA II. MEMBERS REPORTS A. Swearing in of New Members B. Election of Officers III. MINUTES IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS • A. BRYANT LAKE BUSINESS CENTER, PHASE II, by Welsh Companies, Inc. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Regional Commercial to Industrial for 7.96 acres, Zoning District Change from C-Regional to I-2 Park for 7.96 acres, with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, and Preliminary Plat of 7.96 acres into two lots for construction of three office/warehouse buildings. Location: South of Valley View Road, East of Market Place Drive. A public hearing. B. HUBBARD OFFICE/WAREHOUSE, by Hub-Jar Partnership. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 Park on 0.76 acres, with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, and Preliminary Plat of 0.76 acres into one lot for an office/warehouse facility. Location: North of Shady Oak Road, West of Flying Cloud Drive, and East of Highway #169. A public hearing. C. I;ARDARELLE III, by Frank Cardarelle. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to Office for 1.05 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 1.05 acres into one lot for an 8,150 sq. ft. office building. Location: North of Regional Center Road, west of Eden Road. A public hearing. V. OLD BUSINESS VI. NEW BUSINESS • VII. PLANNER'S REPORT VIII. ADJOURNMENT MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, March 11, 1985 School Board Meeting Room 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chairman Ed Schuck, Julianne Bye, Christine Dodge, Robert Hallett, Stan Johannes, Dennis Marhula MEMBER ABSENT: Virginia Gartner STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Kate Karnas, Administrative Assistant Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call I. OATH OF OFFICE--NEW MEMBERS Planner Enger administered the Oath of Office to the newly appointed Commissioners, Julianne Bye and Christine Dodge. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA • MOTION: Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Johannes, to adopt the agenda as printed. Motion carried--6-0-0 III. MEMBERS REPORTS A. Election of Officers MOTION: Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Hallett, to appoint Commissioner Schuck as Acting Chairman until such time as a full Commission was present in order to elect officers. Motion carried--6-0-0 IV. MINUTES MOTION: Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Johannes, to approve the minutes of the February 25, 1985, Planning Commission meeting as printed. • Motion carried--3-0-3 (Commissioners Bye, Dodge, and Marhula abstained) Planning Commission Minutes 2 March 11, 1985 V. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. BRYANT LAKE BUSINESS CENTER, PHASE II, by Welsh Companies, Inc. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Regional Commercial to Industrial for 7.96 acres, Zoning District Change from C-Regional to I-2 Park for 7.96 acres, with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, and Preliminary Plat of 7.96 acres into two lots for construction of three office/warehouse buildings. Location: South of Valley View Road, East of Market Place Drive. A public hearing. Mr. Dennis Doyle, Welsh Construction, reviewed the site plan, site characteristics, and surrounding area developments with the Commission. He explained how the first phase of Bryant Lake Business Center and the proposed second phase would be coordinated into one business campus. Mr. Doyle explained that, after receipt of the letter from Hennepin County regarding limitation of access to Valley View Road, the proponents had met with Hennepin County Transportation staff to discuss the possibility of including the three access points they had shown on their proposal. He stated that the County staff was considering allowing at least one additional access and that they would keep the Staff informed of the progress on their discussions with the County. Mr. Dennis Mulvey, architect for proponents, reviewed the site plan and proposed architecture of the structures with the Commission. He stated that parking had been planned for structures that would be 75% office use, with 25% storage, or assembly. Regarding the architecture of the structures, Mr. Mulvey explained that rounded corners had been designed for the structures in order to soften the impact of the structures on the surrounding area. The buildings would be constructed of brick, glass, and metal panels. Mr. Mulvey pointed out that the existing buildings in Phase I had been a mixture of three colors of brick. The buildings in Phase II would be constructed of dark brown brick, with accent colors of the brick used in the existing buildings for trim. Mr. Mulvey explained that the proponents wanted to maintain the three access points for better circulation within the site. He pointed out that two of the accesses were full accesses, the other was a right-in, right-out, only. He added that in their discussions with the County, the County staff had asked them to choose between one of the two full access points, as opposed to having both. Mr. Mulvey reviewed the screening of parking and loading areas from adjacent uses and public roads. He presented sight sections from Highway #169 and from the existing buildings in Phase I of the development. He stated that they had had discussions with the Minnesota Department of Transportation regarding locating a portion of the berm for screening of the parking from Highway #169 on the State's right-of-way. Proponents had shown the location • of the berm to be 12 ft. onto the State's right-of-way. Regarding parking spaces, Mr. Mulvey stated that instead of building all the parking spaces required, the proponents would prefer to leave the area in green space until such time as the spaces would be needed, if they were ever needed. • Planning Commission Minutes 3 March 11, 1985 Mr. Doyle stated that all of the buildings would have views across Bryant Lake. He added that proponents had held a meeting with the residential neighborhood to the north and that the major concern expressed by them was that they wanted the buildings to remain as low profile buildings. In addition, they were concerned that the lighting be downcast. Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report of March 8, 1985, with the Commission. He discussed the potential for a Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment for the property in that the project would require I-2 Park zoning based on the uses proposed in the building, while the guiding for the property was Regional Commercial. It was explained that the first phase of Bryant Lake Business Center had been one of the first projects of this type in the City and that covenants and restrictions had been prepared and signed by the developers, which placed conditions on the types of uses allowed and the percentages of office and industrial allowed within the project. Since that time, in similar situations where the property had been guided for Office, or Regional Commercial uses, yet the request was for I-2 Park zoning with 75% office use and 25% industrial type uses (storage, assembly, etc.), the City had not required a Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment, but had granted the I-2 Park zoning based on the percentages of uses proposed. Staff listed several examples of this. • Planner Franzen stated that the original plan for this property indicated a second public access to this site from Market Place Drive. The proponents were not showing such an access in their proposal, but instead proponents were requesting three access points to Valley View Road. Planner Franzen also expressed Staff's concern for the adequacy of the landscaping and screening of the property from the public roads and adjacent existing uses. He pointed out that proponents were requesting variances from the required setbacks, which may, or may not be appropriate depending upon the adequacy of the screening and landscaping for the property. Of particular concern were views of the project from existing buildings to the southwest and from Highway #169. Staff also was concerned that the full amount of required parking be built for the site, as opposed to being shown on the plans as "proof of parking." Planner Franzen pointed out that the proponents would need to request variance approvals from the Board of Appeals for those variances requested and that, should the Commission so desire, they could forward any comments regarding these variances to the Board of Appeals. Planner Enger stated that the Staff recommendation regarding the project, in particular with respect to whether a Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment was necessary, was predicated upon several items: the buildings would be 75% office, there would be adequate screening of loading facilities, the buildings would be single story in character, landscaping and screening would be adequate in spite of any variances requested and that adequate screening be accomplished within the setbacks proposed, landscaping and • screening for the site would be based on the City's proposed Code changes as recommended for approval by the Planning Commission, the exteriors of the structures would be of office character, i .e. brick and glass. Planner Enger pointed out that, in order to utilize the Regional Commercial Planning Commission Minutes 4 March 11, 1985 land use guiding for the property, the proponents would be required to also request a variance from the Board of Appeals for the percentage of office use to be allowed within the structures. Planner Enger added that there appeared to be several issues remaining which required resolution. Staff also expressed concern for the compatibility of a rough boulder retaining wall on the property. It was suggested that another, more architecturally compatible, material be employed for the retaining wall and that it would be required that the structural soundness of the retaining wall be demonstrated to Staff prior to its construction. Johannes asked if it was necessary that proponents achieve 75% office usage within the structures, or whether less office use could take place in the buildings. Staff stated that the project should be constructed as if 75% of the buildings would be occupied by office use, including parking. Johannes asked if the State of Minnesota had agreed to the encroachment of 12 ft. of berm on their property along Highway #169. Mr. Mulvey responded that proponents were still trying to work with the State in this regard, but that Hennepin County had agreed to proponents' plans for berming along the Valley View Road right-of-way. Mr. Mulvey stated that he felt the matter could be resolved prior to Council review. • Johannes asked how the setbacks compared to those of other office projects along Highway #169. Staff responded that other similar projects along Highway #169 were zoned and guided for office use and that screening had been accomplished within the setbacks, without use of berming within State right-of-way. Staff added that this project would also be visible from the other side of Highway #169 from existing uses, which was a concern. Johannes stated that he would prefer to see landscaped islands within the parking areas, if parking spaces were not needed for the project. He pointed out that there was alot of asphalt coverage in the front of the buildings along Valley View Road. Staff indicated that another alternative would be to reduce the square footage of the structures. Mr. Doyle stated that proponents were willing to work with Staff regarding the landscaping and berming necessary for screening of the parking and loading areas. He also stated that they would be willing to amend the landscape plan to be in conformance with the proposed landscape/screening code already approved by the Planning Commission. Dodge asked what uses would be in the remaining 25% of the structures if 75% of the use would be office. Mr. Doyle responded that it would likely be storage. He added that this would depend upon the tenants--some may use that portion of their areas for light assembly, production space, or other types of warehousing uses. He stated that the space would be finished and would not be attractive to the typical warehouse user, as the space would be more expensive than they would pay for in a typical warehouse building, • strictly built for warehouse purposes. Hallett questioned whether there might be too much square footage in the structures for proper site design. Staff responded that, if the screening and landscaping matters could be resolved, the plan would likely be • Planning Commission Minutes 5 March 11, 1985 satisfactory. Hallett stated that he was comfortable with the provision to allow for 75% office use within the structures. He stated that he was uncomfortable about the unresolved questions regarding access to Valley View Road and the screening and landscaping of the property. Acting Chairman Schuck asked for comments and questions from members of the audience. There were none. MOTION: Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Johannes, to continue the public hearing on this item to the March 25, 1985, Planning Commission meeting in order that proponents could work with Staff for resolution of questions regarding access to Valley View Road and screening and landscaping issues. Further, that Staff be directed to proceed with publication of the item for the April 2, 1985, City Council meeting. Motion carried--6-0-0 B. HUBBARD OF by Hub-Jar Partnership. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 Park on 0.76 acres, with • variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, and Preliminary Plat of 0.76 acres into one lot for an office/warehouse facility. Location: North of Shady Oak Road, West of Flying Cloud Drive, and East of Highway #169. A public hearing. Mr. Bruce Hubbard, proponent, reviewed the site characteristics and elements of the proposed site plan with the Commission. He stated that he did not feel the site was appropriate for office use, as it was surrounded by industrial uses in the area. He added that he felt the site was difficult to develop within the confines of the City Code as it was an odd shape and size based on current Code requirements. Mr. Hubbard reviewed the interior building plans, indicating that the site would be appropriate for approximately two tenants. He pointed out that, from the elevation of Flying Cloud Drive, the structure would be only 10 ft. high. Mr. Hubbard stated that there would be little possibility for conversion of the structure to office because of the height of the building not being high enough to split into two levels. Regarding the proposed front yard setback variance requested, -Mr. Hubbard stated that the amount of front yard setback was as large, or larger, than those of the other buildings existing in this area. For example, the restaurant in the area had a front yard setback of 17 ft. Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report of March 8, 1985, with the Commission. He pointed out that the . variances requested by the proponent would require review and action by the Board of Appeals, but suggested that, if the Commission had any comments, those comments should be made at this time to be forwarded to the Board of Appeals for their consideration. • Planning Commission Minutes 6 March 11, 1985 Marhula asked why the proponents had not proposed a joint driveway with the restaurant. Mr. Hubbard responded that they felt the parking for the proposed building would end up as "overflow" parking for the restaurant, if a joint driveway was used. In addition, proponents intended to develop the property to the west at some time in the future and suggested that the driveway proposed would more appropriately be shared with the users of the land to the west in the future. Marhula asked about the ownership of Tract D, adjacent to the property under consideration. Mr. Hubbard responded that it was under the same ownership. Marhula pointed out that two of the parking spaces for the proposal under consideration were encroaching upon Tract D and that Code required that all parking for a use be located upon the same parcel . Planner Franzen discussed the parking situation of the property. He stated that proponent should be providing for unobstructed access to the structure and to the parking areas for the site. Marhula questioned the ability for manuevering of trucks on the site. Mr. Hubbard responded that proponents did not intend that large semi-trucks be delivering to the site. Marhula asked if proponent had any preliminary plans for use of the property to the west. Mr. Hubbard responded that tentative plans were for expansion of the Mini-Storage use on this property. • Marhula stated that he was comfortable with the use proposed for the site and with the proposed setback variance for the front yard setback. However, he stated that he was concerned with respect to the property to the west in terms of the future use of the property, access to it, and the encroachment of the parking areas from this proposal onto that property. Planner Enger pointed out that the building was proposed to be a "spec" building, available for tenants. Therefore, parking requirements for the structure had been based on the potential for one-third of the structure being used as office, one-third as manufacturing, and one-third used for warehousing. Based upon this formula, the site would be required to have 29 parking spaces. Proponents were showing only 17 spaces on the site plan. It was suggested that the structure could be reduced in square footage in order to lower the parking requirements. It was also suggested that the site could be enlarged in that surrounding vacant property was under the same ownership. Hallett stated that he concurred with the suggestion regarding less square footage of the building, or more land being added, in order to meet parking requirements for the site and use proposed. Marhula stated that he shared the same concerns and added that he felt it would be important to know what the plans were for the property to the west of this site, which was under the same ownership. He suggested that the Commission should perhaps be reviewing the overall development for the • property under the same ownership, prior to acting on the proposal before the Commission at this time. Acting Chairman Schuck asked for comments and questions from members of the audience. There were none. Planning Commission Minutes 7 March 11, 1985 MOTION: Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Johannes, to continue the public hearing to the Planning Commission meeting of April 8, 1985, in order to allow proponent opportunity to make revisions to the plan and to present plans for the property to the west under the same ownership. Motion carried--6-0-0 C. CARDARELLE III, by Frank Cardarelle. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to Office for 1.05 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 1.05 acres into one lot for an 8,150 sq. ft. office building. Location: North of Regional Center Road, west of Eden Road. A public hearing. Mr. Frank Cardarelle, proponent, reviewed the site characteristics and site plan features with the Commission. He stated that he intended to save as many of the mature trees on the site as possible, moving them to other portions of the site if necessary. Mr. Cardarelle stated that he had one concern with respect to the Staff Report in regard to the sidewalk recommended for construction in front of the building. He stated that, in the past, he had granted an easement for location of the sidewalk in front of buildings he had proposed in Eden Prairie. He added that he would be • willing to grant such an easement in this case; however, he would prefer not to be required to build the sidewalk. Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report of March 8, 1985, with the Commission. He expressed concern regarding the mature trees on the site, stating that the Staff had requested a tree survey of the property at the time of application, but had not received one. Upon field check of the site, it appeared as if several of the mature spruce trees would be removed due to construction on the site. Proponent had not indicated on the plans that the trees would be relocated on the property. Planner Enger stated that the previous sites developed by Mr. Cardarelle had been located on streets which were part of future public improvement projects under immediate consideration at the time of his developments. Therefore, the sidewalks became part of the street construction projects. However, this was not the case for the proposal before the Commission at this time. Because of this, Staff was recommending installation of the sidewalk by the proponent in this case. Hallett asked if sidewalk construction could be included in the upgrading of the road. Staff responded that they would review this matter with the Engineering Department prior to Council review of the project. Marhula asked if it was necessary to have two access points to the parking lot. He suggested that, with the elimination of one of the access points, it would be possible to redesign the parking lot to include the additional parking needed as pointed out in the Staff Report. Mr. Cardarelle stated that he felt there was room on the site for construction of the additional parking spaces mentioned in the Staff Report. He added that he preferred to maintain two access points due to the problems encountered with deliveries • Planning Commission Minutes 8 March 11, 1985 to office buildings which often blocked access. With two access points, this would not be a problem. Mr. Cardarelle stated that there was also a problem involved in the deed to the property regarding maintaining the existing access to the site. The Commission asked Staff to check into matter of the deed restriction to ascertain whether it was a requirement of the City, or not. Marhula asked about storm water drainage from the southwest corner of the parking lot. Staff responded that a catch basin would be required in the area of the south driveway entrance. Dodge asked about the location of the existing spruce trees on the site. Staff responded that two appeared to be located within the parking lot, one within a proposed setback area. Dodge expressed concern about the success of relocating such trees on the site. Staff stated that, should the trees not survive the transplanting process, the developer would be required to replace the trees on the site per City Code requirements. Acting Chairman Schuck asked for comments and questions from members of the audience. There were none. MOTION 1• . Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Hallett, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--6-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Hallett, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Frank Cardarelle for Zoning District Change from Rural to Office for 1.05 acres for an 8,150 sq. ft. office building, based on written materials dated February 15, 1985, and plans dated March 5, 1985, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated March 8, 1985 with item #1c amended to read as follows: ". . .and add coniferous trees to replace those lost with construction in accordance with City policy." Motion carried--6-0-0 MOTION 3: Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Frank Cardarelle for Preliminary Plat of 1.05 acres into one lot for an 8,150 sq. ft. office building, based on written materials dated February 15, 1985, and plans dated March 5, 1985, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated March 8, 1985 with item #1c amended to read as follows: ". . .add coniferous trees to replace • those lost with construction in accordance with City policy." Motion carried--6-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes 9 March 11, 1985 VI. OLD BUSINESS Election of Officers The Commission discussed election of officers and decided to proceed with the election at this time. MOTION 1: Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Schuck to open nominations for the position Chairman. Commissioner Schuck was nominated. There were no other nominations for the position. Nominations were closed. A unanimous ballot was cast for Commissioner Schuck as Chairman of the Planning Commission. MOTION 2• Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Schuck to open nominations for the position of Vice Chairman. . Commissioner Hallett was nominated. There were no other nominations for the position. Nominations were closed. A unanimous ballot was cast for Commissioner Hallett as Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission. MOTION 3: Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Schuck, to open nominations for the position of Secretary. Commissioner Gartner was nominated. There were no other nominations. for the position. Nominations were closed. A unanimous ballot was cast for Commissioner Gartner as Secretary of the Planning Commission. VII. NEW BUSINESS None. VIII. PLANNER'S REPORT None. IX. ADJOURNMENT MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Johannes, seconded by Hallett. Chairman Schuck adjourned the meeting at 11:00 p.m.