Loading...
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.