Planning Commission - 08/26/1985 AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, August 26, 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
(7:35) B. DATASERV, INC., by Opus Corporation. Request for Planned Unit
Development Concept Amendment on 17.4 acres, Zoning District Change
from Rural to I-2 Park on 9.56 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 17.4
acres into one lot and one outlot for construction of a building.
Location: 78th Street and Prairie Center Drive. A public hearing.
(8:00) C. EDEN PRAIRIE CONVENIENCE CENTER, by K. Charles Development Cor-
poration. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from
Office to Commercial on 2.3 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept
Amendment on 13.5 acres, Zoning District Change on 2.3 acres, with
variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, and Preliminary
Plat of 2.3 acres into one lot for construction of a 15, 750 square
foot building. Location: Northwest corner of U.S. Highway #169 and
Eden Road. A public hearing.
(8:30) A. LION'S TAP, review of excessive fill (beyond permit approval), from
Lion's Tap grading operation deposited on Sever Peterson's land.
Location: Northeast corner of U.S. #169 and County Road #4.
V. OLD BUSINESS
VI. NEW BUSINESS
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
**NOTE: The times listed above are tentative, and may be significantly
earlier, or later, than listed.
4P
MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, August 26, 1985
School Board Meeting Room
7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ed Schuck, Christine Dodge, Virginia Gartner,
Robert Hallett (7:45 p.m.), Stan Johannes
MEMBERS ABSENT: Julianne Bye, Dennis Marhula
STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Kate Karnas, Admini-
strative Assistant
Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Dodge, to adopt the agenda as
printed.
Motion carried--4-0-0
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
None.
III. MINUTES
MOTION:
Motion was made by Johannes, seconded by Dodge, to approve the minutes of
the August 12, 1985, Planning Commission meeting as printed.
Motion carried--3-0-1 (Gartner abstained)
(Hallett arrived at 7:45 p.m.)
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. DATASERV, INC., by Opus Corporation. Request for Planned Unit
Development Concept Amendment on 17.4 acres, Zoning District Change
from Rural to I-2 Park on 9.56 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 17.4
acres into one lot and one outlot for construction of a building.
Location: 78th Street and Prairie Center Drive. A public hearing.
The City had previously reviewed this property (Prairie Center Business
Planning Commission Minutes 2 August 26, 1985
16 Park) and approved a general design framework for the land by which to
review actual proposals in the future.
Mr. Robert Worthington, Opus Corporation, reviewed some of the concerns
raised by the Staff Report. He stated that proponents would be willing to
work out the details of revising the architecture of the south wall with the
Staff in order to meet City Code requirements. Mr. Worthington added that
proponents were also willing to revise the landscape plan and screening of
loading docks with the Staff to meet Code requirements.
Mr. John MacKenzie, Opus Corporation, reviewed the sight lines through the
property from public roads and to the mechanical equipment planned on the
top of the structure.
Mr. Worthington added that this would be a corporate headquarters for the
DataSery company.
Planner Enger stated that it had been determined during prior City review of
this property that this site was a "keystone" site within the Major Center
Area (MCA) . The concerns of the City regarding such sites revolved around
the type and quality of the development. Planner Enger stated that there
were lengthy philosophical discussions at both the Planning Commission and
City Council meetings about this site and the manner in which it should be
developed. Final approval included a set of guidelines by which the
. property was to be developed.
Planner Enger stated that these guidelines were meant to set minimums. One
guideline was that loading docks would not be visible. The proponents had
not complied with this guideline based on the current plans. Planner Enger
stated that Staff had made suggestions for changes to the proponents; but
that none had been used.
Regarding screening of mechanical equipment, Planner Enger stated that
proponents had indicated that they were not certain about the final location
of the mechanical equipment for the structure. He stated that, on a site
such as this, so highly visible, the mechanical equipment should be located
and the screening methods known.
Regarding the guideline dealing with similarity of architecture between the
office and warehouse portions of the structure, Planner Enger noted that the
proponents had not carried through a similarity of architectural design and
materials--the south building face was shown to be tip-up concrete panels.
While proponents represented that the tip-up concrete would be temporary
pending expansion of the structure, there was no time limit as to
"temporary."
Planner Enger stated that the major concern regarding this project was that
the plans, as presented, did not meet the intent of of ' guidelines
established for this property by prior review of the Prairie Center Business
10 Park.
Johannes asked about building and site coverage. Planner Enger responded
that the building coverage was 32% and the hard-surface coverage, including
building and parking lot, was approximately 65%. Johannes asked what the
Planning Commission Minutes 3 August 26, 1985
Enger
Comprehensive Guide Plan designation for this site was. Planner En
p 9 9
responded that it was Industrial .
Johannes stated that his recollection from the review of the Prairie Center
Business Park was that the goal was to reflect a decidedly office-like
exterior for the project. Planner Enger confirmed that this was correct.
Planner Enger stated that it the proponents had represented that they had
met the intent of the guidelines approved by the City. He added that this
was not Staff's opinion.
Mr. Worthington asked for direction as to changes the Planning Commission
would recommend for the property.
Chairman Schuck stated that at the time of review of the Prairie Center
Business Park, representatives of Opus had presented pictures of the types
of buildings which would possibly be built on this site. He stated that he
did not feel that the structure shown was -representative of those presented
previously, in particular with respect to the warehouse portion of the
structure. Chairman Schuck stated that he did not feel the City should
approve a clearly visible loading dock in this location. He added that he
felt proponents had an opportunity to place a high quality building in this
location, and that it was their responsibility, as well as the City's, to
treat this keystone site within the MCA with care. Dodge and Gartner
• concurred.
Johannes stated that he would prefer to see an office building on this site,
due to its proximity to the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area and its location
within the MCA. He added that he concurred with the concerns of Chairman
Schuck.
Chairman Schuck suggested that proponents try to be creative with the design
of the structure in order to meet the guidelines established for the Prairie
Center Business Park.
Gartner suggested that perhaps this use was not appropriate for this
location, based on the proponent's needs.
Hallett stated that he, too, concurred with the concerns raised by Chairman
Schuck. He asked if there was adequate room for screening of the parking
within the setbacks shown on the site plan. Planner Enger stated that
revised plans would need to be reviewed to determine this.
Mr. Don Brauer, representing the owner of property to the south and east,
expressed concern for preservation of the wooded area at the south end of
this parcel . He noted that the proposal shown would cause some of these
trees to be removed. He also expressed concern for the visibility of the
loading dock, and the lack of office-like appearance to the structure as
proposed.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Dodge, to continue the public
hearing to allow proponents opportunity to revise the plans for DataSery in
Planning Commission Minutes 4 August 26, 1985
order to make the plans consistent with general design framework established
p 9 9
for the property.
Motion carried--5-0-0
B. EDEN PRAIRIE CONVENIENCE CENTER, by K. Charles Development Cor-
poration. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from
Office to Commercial on 2.3 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept
Amendment on 13.5 acres, Zoning District Change on 2.3 acres, with
variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, and Preliminary
Plat of 2.3 acres into one lot for construction of a 15, 750 square
foot building. Location: Northwest corner of U.S. Highway #169 and
Eden Road. A public hearing.
Planner Enger stated that proponents, upon receipt of the Staff Report, had
requested continuance of this item in order to mitigate the issues raised in
the report. In particular, proponents intended to have a traffic study
prepared for the development. At this time, they requested continuance of
the item to the September 9, 1985, Planning Commission meeting so as to
prepare the additional study and make any necessary changes to their plans.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Dodge, to continue this item to the
a September 9, 1985, Planning Commission meeting in order to allow proponent
opportunity to redesign the site in conformance with the concerns listed in
the Staff Report dated August 23, 1985.
Motion carried--5-0-0
C. LION'S TAP, review of excessive fill (beyond permit approval) , from
Lion's Tap grading operation deposited on Sever Peterson's land.
Location: Northeast corner of U.S. #169 and County Road #4.
The Planning Staff expressed concern about two major items with regard to
the illegal placement of fill on the Peterson property adjacent to the
Lion's Tap. First, the lack of compliance with City ordinances controlling
this type of activity and the possibility of encouraging more of the same.
Second, the expansion of the Lion's Tap was an accommodation to the owner of
the use to allow expansion of an existing non-conforming land use outside of
the City's Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA Line), in conflict with its
Comprehensive Plan, and contrary to the Bluff Preservation Policy, in order
to solve the parking and circulation problems; however, the problems had not
yet been resolved.
Planner Enger stated that the problem was that the use had grown to a point
where parking and circulation were becoming safety hazards. The owner of
the Lion's Tap had indicated that the only way to provide safe parking off
the County and State Highways was to allow significant expansion of his
building in conjunction with redesign of the site. The expansion of the
building was accomplished, and the expansion of the business appeared to
have been even greater, leaving the same parking and circulation problems.
Zoning Administrator Jean Johnson reviewed the Staff Report with the
Planning Commission Minutes 5 August 26, 1985
Commission and presented slides of the existing conditions on the site after
the fill had been placed on Mr. Peterson's property. She noted that the
fill was likely placed on the property on, or about, December, 1984.
Gartner asked if the placement of this fill in the floodplain would cause
County Road #4, or Highway #169, to be flooded. Zoning Administrator
Johnson reported that the Watershed District engineers were in the process
of making those calculations and would be reporting back to the City.
Chairman Schuck as Mr. Peterson how it came to be that the fill was
deposited in this location. Mr. Peterson stated that he was unaware of the
requirements of the City for review, but that he had checked with the
Watershed District and thought that he had received an approval from them to
place the fill in that location.
Planner Enger stated that the City was concerned about the technical aspects
of this situation, specifically that this was a significant amount of fill,
there was danger of setting a precedent for others to do the same in the
City, and that the potential future land use of the property had also been
changed by the addition of the fill .
Regarding the potential future land use, Planner Enger stated that the City
would now be discussing a parcel of property at the corner of two major
thoroughfares, instead of a designated floodplain. He suggested that a
• "land-hold" agreement may need to be prepared in order to prevent premature
development of the property until the point in time when sewer and water
were available to the property. Currently, the property was located outside
of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area, which precluded development.
Hallett stated that he had attended a meeting on Mr. Peterson's site, with
representatives of the Watershed District, the City, Mr. Peterson, and Mr.
Noterman, owner of the Lion's Tap, after the fill had been located on Mr.
Peterson's property. Hallett stated that the representative from the
Watershed District had stated that he did not feel the location of the fill
would create a problem for the floodplain. Hallett added that he felt there
was no ill intent on the part of Mr. Peterson, or Mr. Noterman, but that an
honest mistake had been made and that they should have checked with the City
prior to locating the fill on this property.
Hallett stated that he, too, was concerned about the potential future land
use of the property. He added that he felt the City should also continue to
work with Hennepin County in order to achieve a safer alignment of County
Road #4 with Highway #169 in this area.
Mr. Peterson stated that he would want the property to retain its Rural
zoning and that his intentions were for agricultural use of the property.
Chairman Schuck expressed concern about the possibility of setting precedent
by recommending approval of this action. He stated that by approving Mr.
Peterson's request, the City would find it difficult to deny a similar
request of any other resident of the community.
Planner Enger stated for clarification that the Watershed District Board had
not approved the proposed fill, nor had the representative from the
Planning Commission Minutes 6 August 26, 1985
Watershed District represented that the Board had approved the fill . He
stated that there had clearly been a misunderstanding as to what was
approved by the Watershed District.
Gartner stated that she felt the Commission should not take any action on
this matter until information was available from the Watershed District and
the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources with respect to the impact of
filling this area of the floodplain.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett, to continue review of this
item to the September 9, 1985, Planning Commission meeting, pending receipt
of reports from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the Riley-
Purgatory-Bluff Watershed District.
Motion carried--5-0-0
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 10:00 p.m.