Loading...
Planning Commission - 05/13/1985 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION • Monday, May 13, 1985 School Board Meeting Room 7:30 p.m. COMMISSION MEMBERS: 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 III. MINUTES IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. SAM'S WHOLESALE CLUB, by Wal-Mart Properties, Inc. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Regional Service for 16.17 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 16.17 acres into one lot for a 106,000 square foot building. Location: Plaza Drive and Prairie Center Drive. A continued public hearing. B. THE GARDEN, by Hakon and Karen Torjesen. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 10.16 acres and Preliminary Plat of 10.16 acres into 25 single family lots. Location: North of Rowland Road, West of Shady Oak Road. A continued public hearing. C. RESEARCH FARM 2ND ADDITION, by Northrup King. Request for Pre- liminary Plat of approximately 177 acres into six outlots. Location: West of Highway #169 at Anderson Lakes Parkway. A public hearing. D. JUHL PACIFIC, by Opus Corporation. Request for Planned Unit Development District Review of 4.5 acres with Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 Park on 4.5 acres and Preliminary Plat of 4.5 acres into one lot for construction of a 61,000 square foot office/warehouse. Location: Southeast corner of Valley View Road and Executive Drive. A public hearing. E. SOUTHWEST CROSSINGS, by Vantage Companies. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on approximately 106 acres for 1.626 million square feet of office and commercial uses. Location: East of Highway #169, North of Interstate I-494, West of Viking Training facility, and South of Nine Mile Creek. A public hearing. V. OLD BUSINESS VI. NEW BUSINESS VII. PLANNER'S REPORT VIII. ADJOURNMENT MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 13, 1985 School Board Meeting Room 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ed Schuck, Julianne Bye, Christine Dodge, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett, Stan Johannes, Dennis Marhula MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Kate Karnas, Administrative Assistant Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Gartner, to adopt the agenda as printed. • Motion carried--7-0-0 II. MEMBERS REPORTS None. III. MINUTES MOTION: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Johannes, to approve the minutes of the April 22, 1985, Planning Commission meeting as printed. Motion carried--6-0-1 (Dodge abstained) IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. SAM'S WHOLESALE CLUB, by Wal-Mart Properties, Inc. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Regional Service for 16.17 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 16.17 acres into one lot for a 106,000 square foot building. Location: Plaza Drive and Prairie Center Drive. A continued public hearing. Representatives of proponent contacted Staff that the owner's wished to withdraw their request at this time. Planning Commission Minutes 2 May 13, 1985 s MOTION: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Marhula, to close the public hearing and return the item to the proponent, without prejudice. Motion carried--7-0-0 B. THE GARDEN, by Hakon and Karen Torjesen. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 10.16 acres and Preliminary Plat of 10.16 acres into 25 single family lots. Location: North of Rowland Road, West of Shady Oak Road. A continued public hearing. Planner Enger stated that Staff had met with the proponent on several different occasions since the April 22, 1985 Planning Commission meeting. The proponent had revised the grading plan to reflect actual building pads, which were a realistic representation of the impact of the development upon the property. It was Staff's opinion that revised the amount of grading proposed was acceptable. Staff had also had conversations with Mr. Bodin and Mr. Farber, adjacent neighbors, who indicated that they had engaged the services of a site planner to give them an indication of how portions of their properties might be developed along with the Garden. Just prior to this Planning Commission meeting, Staff met with the neighbors and a representative of the proponent to review possible solutions to mitigate the concerns of all parties. Alternatives were discussed. Mr. Tim Erkkila, Westwood Planning and Engineering, representing proponent, stated that 23 lots were now proposed at a density of 2.26 units per acre. Mr Erkkila reviewed site characteristics of the property, stating that the northwest and southeast slopes of the property ranged from 25-50%. He stated that, after discussing the alternatives reviewed with the Planning Staff and the neighbors earlier that day, the proponent had declined the alternative of access through the wetland and had declined the alternative of "swapping" land with the adjacent neighbors as proponent believed this would mean giving up the prime lots within the subdivision, without adequate compensation to proponent. Mr. Erkkila stated that it was proponent's position that the revised grading plan provided adequate protection of the oak trees on the property. He presented a cross section proposed grading of the property as it would be viewed from the property to the west. Regarding the issue of a storm sewer outlet, Mr. Erkkila stated it was proponent's position that the storm water drainage plans for the area be reinstated to provide proper drainage for the area as was provided in the past; however, proponent did not feel the storm water drainage work needed in this area was as a result of this project. Another issue was that of sight distance at the intersection of the property • with Rowland Road. Mr. Erkkila stated that proponent was willing to undertake whatever was necessary to improve Rowland Road to make sight vision distance safer. Regarding the project density, Mr. Erkkila stated that proponent's project Planning Commission Minutes 3 May 13, 1985 was at 2.26 units per acre; the property to the east was at 2.9 units per acre, and the property to the west, which was recently platted, was at 1.49 units per acre. Mr. Erkkila stated that the revised grading plan now resulted in the potential loss of only two, or three, trees twelve inches in diameter, or greater. One cottonwood tree, located within the right-of-way, would be removed. In general, scrub elm trees and box elder trees would be removed with the grading process. Regarding treatment of the pond, it was proponent's position that the work in this area, as proposed, was necessary to make the project successful . Mr. Erkkila stated that proponent felt the net effect on the overall area would be negligible as the proposed development of the pond area would not displace enough water to be of any consequence and, in proponent's opinion, would not affect the overall drainage for the area significantly. With respect to structural controls, Mr. Erkkila stated that the lots would be prepared with the building pads graded to accommodate the types of structures necessary to preserve trees and slopes. Mr. Erkkila stated that the proponent was not willing to give up the prime lots in the northwest area of the property to "swap" land with his neighbors. He added that proponent was also not willing to spend more time and money on development of plans for property which was not under his control. Planner Enger reviewed the proposed land "swap," which had been discussed prior to the Planning Commission meeting with Mr. Erkkila, representing the proponent, and the two neighbors, Farbers and Bodins. Mr. Erkkila stated that the proponent had told him he would be willing to review other plans for the area; however, a deadline should be established for all parties to make some sort of presentation before the Commission. Johannes asked whether the proposed "swap" of land between the neighbors would have an impact on the grading plan for the property. Planner Enger responded that there would be a positive impact in that 30-40 feet less of grading would be necessary in the northwest area of the property since housing pads would not be graded in this location. Johannes asked if trees of any significance would be saved by this plan. Mr. Erkkila stated that there would not be any addition tree saved by this plan. Mr. Roger Farber, 6525 Rowland Road, stated that he had been told by the proponent that it was proponent's intention to sell the property, not to development himself. Mr. Farber expressed his willingness for a "swap" of property with the proponent in order to help in planning for the entire neighborhood. He also expressed concern regarding the protection of the northwest wooded slope of the property. • Mr. Cliff Bodin, 6400 Shady Oak Road, stated that he agreed with Mr. Farber's comments, adding that he felt it was important to allow for the highest and best use of the property by proper planning of the neighborhood. He added that the proposed development would leave a portion of his property Planning Commission Minutes 4 May 13, 1985 landlocked, which did not necessarily have to be the case. MOTION 1• Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to continue the public hearing to the June 10, 1985, Planning Commission meeting to allow proponent and the surrounding neighbors to work out joint plans to be presented to the Commission. Proponent and the neighbors shall have their plans to the Planning Staff no later than June 1, 1985. Dodge stated that she was under the impression that proponent was not interested in alternative methods of developing the property. Mr. Erkkila stated that proponent did not feel the proposed alternative was one which benefitted him; however, he was willing to look at other alternatives to mitigate the situation. Motion carried--6-0-1 (Marhula abstained) C. RESEARCH FARM 2ND ADDITION, by Northrup King. Request for Pre- liminary Plat of approximately 177 acres into six outlots. Location: West of Highway #169 at Anderson Lakes Parkway. A public hearing. Mr. Dick Putnam, representing proponents, stated that the purpose of the • proposed platting was to divide the property into outlots based on land use boundaries established. He stated that the creek corridor would be dedicated to the City by each individual owner as development took place. Concurrent with the final plat, it was Northrup King's intention to convey the creek corridor along the west side of Purgatory Creek to the City, however. He added that Northrup King would not be taking part in the future development of any of the property. Planner Enger reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report of May 10, 1985, regarding this project. He stated that, even though the entire corridor along the creek was not being dedicated to the City at this time, it was made a condition of the platting approval because the authority for doing so was considered a platting function by State Statute. Hallett asked if all future development of this property would be required to have Planning Commission and Council review. Planner Enger responded that this would be required. Chairman Schuck asked for questions and comments from members of the audience. There were none. MOTION 1: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Marhula, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--7-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes 5 May 13, 1985 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Marhula, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Northrup King for preliminary plat of Research Farm 2nd Addition, based on plans dated April 19, 1985, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report of May 10, 1985. Motion carried--7-0-0 D. JUHL PACIFIC, by Opus Corporation. Request for Planned Unit Development District Review of 4.5 acres with Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 Park on 4.5 acres and Preliminary Plat of 4.5 acres into one lot for construction of a 61,000 square foot office/warehouse. Location: Southeast corner of Valley View Road and Executive Drive. A public hearing. Mr. Bob Worthington, Opus Corporation, representing proponent, reviewed the proposed plans with the Commission. He stated that Juhl Pacific was currently located in Eden Prairie, but had grown large enough to support its own facility at this time. Mr. Greg Nook, architect for proponent, reviewed the development characteristics including structure elevations, materials, and design. He explained that there was an NSP easement affecting the property which . required that landscaping materials be a maximum of 15 ft. in one area of the property. Mr. Worthington reviewed the conditions listed in the Staff Report, stating that, in general, there was no objection to the modifications listed as necessary for the plan. The one matter of concern to the proponent was the requirement for more landscaping/screening of the loading area along the south property line, the area within which the proponent was restricted to a certain height of landscape materials due to the NSP easement. Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report of May 10, 1985, with the Commission. He stated out that Staff had been working with the proponent to arrive at possible solutions to the problem of screening the loading area along the south property line of the site. Planner Franzen stated that Edenvale Industrial Park 9th Addition, of which this project was a part, had been approved as a Planned Unit Development Concept to include both Industrial and Office uses. With the currently proposed plan, the top several feet of the loading doors would be visible from other structures within the development area. City Code required that loading areas be screened from adjacent uses. Planner Franzen stated that the use of plant materials, only, may not be adequate to accomplish the screening required by Code. Marhula asked whether the owners of the project which would be able to see the loading doors had been contacted as to their opinion of the proposed screening. Mr. K. E. Schumacher, 14500 Valley View Road, representing the owners of Edenvale Industrial Park 9th Addition, stated that it was the development owners' concern that all buildings be developed in such a as that they would not impact poorly on adjacent lots. Planning Commission Minutes 6 May 13, 1985 Mr. Nook presented sight lines through the property from the loading area to the building which would be most affected by potential views of the loading arear of this proposal . He stated that he felt the aggregate affect of the screening provided on the site, and that of other individual developments within Edenvale 9th Addition, would be to effectively screen the loading areas from view. Planner Franzen pointed out that options for mitigation of this problem included possible reduction of the building size, recessing of the loading doors further into the building, additional plant materials, and/or berming. Hallett asked if the matter could be worked out between Staff and the proponent prior to review by the City Council . Staff responded that they would be comfortable doing so. Mr. Schumacher stated that the overall framework for the entire park was based upon consistency in the park. He stated that one of the things the owners of the park wanted was that overhead doors be screened as much as possible. He stated that he did not know how much screening would be adequate to accomplish this. Mr. Schumacher added that he felt the distance between the buildings was enough to also aid in screening. MOTION 1: • Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Dodge, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--7-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Juhl Pacific for Planned Unit Development District Review and Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 Park on 4.5 acres, for construction of an office/warehouse structure, based on written materials dated April 12, 1985, revised plans dated May 9, 1985, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated May 10, 1985, with the clear understanding that the loading areas shall be screened to meet the requirements listed by Staff in the May 10, 1985, Staff Report, prior to Council review of the project. Motion carried--7-0-0 MOTION 3: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Juhl Pacific for Preliminary Plat of 4.5 acres into one lot for an office/warehouse structure, based on written materials dated April 12, 1985, revised plans dated May 9, 1985, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated May 10, 1985, with the clear understanding that the loading areas shall be screened to meet the requirements listed by Staff in the May 10, 1985, Staff Report, prior to Council review of the project. Motion carried--7-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes 7 May 13, 1985 E. SOUTHWEST CROSSINGS, by Vantage Companies. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on approximately 106 acres for 1.626 million square feet of office and commercial uses. Location: East of Highway #169, North of Interstate I-494, West of Viking Training facility, and South of Nine Mile Creek. A public hearing. Mr. Matthew Nicoll , Vantage Companies, reviewed the proposed concept plan site characteristics with the Planning Commission, explaining the reasoning for locations of various uses on the property. He stated that, as part of the proposal, Vantage was proposing to raise the level of Smetana Lake, as had been proposed by the Watershed District some time ago as an alternative method for dealing with the storm water drainage in the area. Mr. Nicoll stated that a meeting had been held with the surrounding residents regarding this matter. The conclusion of the proponents at this time was that this alternative may be dropped from consideration. Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report of May 10, 1985, with the Commission. He stated that it was Staff's opinion that the proposed uses were appropriate for the property, and that the intensity of uses, with respect to the topography of the site, made sense. Planner Franzen pointed out that a 20% reduction in Average Daily Trips (ADT) was necessary for the project in order to maintain adequate traffic circulation for the area. He added that it would also be necessary for a Design Framework Manual to be prepared for the entire property. Planner Franzen added that an Environmental Assessment Worksheet had been prepared in 1975 for the site, which, upon Staff review, was found to still be valid for the site. Planner Enger stated that traffic was the most significant issue for this property. A traffic study had been prepared, commissioned by the City, dealing with traffic impacts of the entire area, including the Vantage site. The determination of the need for a 20% reduction in ADT was based upon the findings of the traffic study. Marhula asked if the other agencies involved with review of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) issues would again be reviewing the project against the original 1975 EAW. Mr. Dale Beckman, representing proponents, stated that many of those agencies had already been contacted throughout the planning process of this project. He stated that there had been meetings with representatives of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency recently and that some of the other agencies involved, such as the Department of Natural Resources, would be asked to issue permits for grading, etc. on the property. At these times, the EAW from 1975 has been, and will continued to be discussed and reviewed. Marhula noted that the information from the proponents indicated that the area to be preserved as a wooded knoll had been relocated. Planner Enger stated that Staff had walked the site recently and concurred with the proponents that the relocated preservation area was preferrable and maintained the highest quality trees on the site. Marhula added that he was concerned about maintaining the visibility of the knoll from the recreational uses on, and surrounding, the property. Planning Commission Minutes 8 May 13, 1985 Regarding the proposed extension of Viking Drive, Marhula asked if the City had not just processed a vacation of this portion of Viking Drive. Staff responded that this was the case; however, based on the proposed uses, proponents were asking to have this portion of Viking Drive added back into the plans. Marhula asked if the intersection of Viking Drive with Highway 169 aligned with the access to the Brock Residence Inn site. Staff responded that it did. Marhula asked about fish and wildlife within the Nine Mile Creek and Smetana Lake area which may be affected by the development of this property. Mr. Beckman responded that proponents had discussed the plans with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The proponents would be presenting detailed plans to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service for their review and would agree to any changes necessary. Mr. Don Brauer, representing Condon- Naegele, reviewed the history of the lake and creek development in this area. He stated that, due to the current condition of the lake, it was determined that any work done would likely improve the quality of the lake providing better quality water for the wildlife in the area. Hallett asked if there were fish in Smetana Lake. Mr. Nicoll responded that there were. Hallett asked if there was a public access planned to Smetana Lake. Staff responded that the City did own some of the frontage along the lakeshore of Smetana Lake; however, access to the lake had proven difficult to provide. Mr. Nicoll stated that the Master Plan agreement for the property, previously executed by Vantage and the City, provided for a sidewalk/trail system throughout the properties. He pointed out that some of the locations for sidewalks and trails no longer made sense, based on the proposed location of uses within the Planned Unit Development Concept. He asked if the City would allow for amendment to this portion of the approved agreement. Staff responded that this could be worked out to the benefit of the City and proponents, adding that there were likely better locations for some of the sidewalks or trails based on the new plan. Exact locations would be reviewed with each individual site plan for each individual structure. Mr. Nicoll added that the proponents were concerned about a Design Framework Manuarl for the site. He stated that this was a matter of importance to the proponents, as well , that the site be developed in harmony. Mr. Nicoll stated that the proponents would be encumbering the property with covenants and restrictions to ensure proper controls over the site. MOTION 1: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Marhula, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--7-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Marhula, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Vantage Companies for Planned Unit Planning Commission Minutes 9 May 13, 1985 Development Concept Review of approximately 106 acres for 1.626 million square feet of office and commercial uses, based on written materials and plans dated April 15, 1985, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated May 10, 1985. Motion carried--7-0-0 V. OLD BUSINESS None. VI. NEW BUSINESS None. VII. PLANNER'S REPORT None. VIII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Gartner, seconded by Johannes. Chairman Schuck adjourned the meeting at 12:15 a.m.