Loading...
Planning Commission - 10/07/1985 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Special Meeting Monday, October 7, 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) 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. A continued pubic meeting. (7:40) B. FARRINGTON WOODS, by Barnett-Range Corporation. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 31.7 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with variances on 21.6 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-2.5 on 21.6 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 31.7 acres into one lot, one outlot, and road right-of-way, and Environmental Assessment Worksheet Review on 31.7 acres for construction of 252 apartment units. Location: West of U.S. #169, and North of Research Farm. A continued public hearing. (7:45) C. EDEN PRAIRIE CONVENIENCE CENTER, by K. Charles Development Cor- poration. Request for Guide Plan Amendment, Planned Unit Development Concept Review, Zoning District Change from Office to Regional Service, and Preliminary Plat of 2.30 acres for restaurant-tenant retail space. Location: Northwest corner of U.S. Highway #169 and Eden Road. A continued public hearing. (8:30) D. MENARDS EXPANSION, by Menards, Inc. Request for Zoning Amendment within C-Reg-Service District to allow for the construction of a shelter, with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals. Location: Menards Building, adjacent to Plaza Drive. A public hearing. (9:15) E. SIGNATURE II OFFICE BUILDING, by MRTT Joint Venture. Request for Planned Unit Development Amendment Review on 20 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review, with variances, on 20 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to Office on 4.07 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 4.07 acres into one lot for construction of a 54,000 square foot office building. Location: West of U.S. #169, East of City West Parkway. A public hearing. Agenda October 7, 1985 Page Two (9:45) F. HOYT TECH 5, 6, & 7, by Technology Park Associates. Request for Planned Unit Development District Review, with variances, on 17.53 acres, Zoning District Changes from Rural to I-2 Park on 9.27 acres, and Rural to Office on 3.74 acres, with Shoreland Ordinance variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Preliminary Plat of 17.53 acres into two lots and two outlots for construction of two warehouse buildings and one office building, totalling 184,458 square feet. Location: East of Golden Triangle Road and South of West 76th Street. A public hearing. V. OLD BUSINESS VI. NEW BUSINESS VII. PLANNER'S REPORT VIII. ADJOURNMENT Note: The times listed above, are tentatively scheduled and may be significantly earlier, or later, than listed. MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, October 7, 1985 School Board Meeting Room 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ed Schuck, Julianne Bye, Christine Dodge (7:40 p.m.), Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett, Dennis Marhula MEMBER ABSENT: Stan Johannes STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Don Uram Assistant Planner; Kate Karnas, Administrative Assistant Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett, to adopt the agenda as printed. • Motion carried--5-0-0 II. MEMBERS REPORTS None. III. MINUTES MOTION: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to approve the minutes of the September 23, 1985, Planning Commission meeting as printed. Motion carried--3-0-2 (Chairman Schuck and Marhula abstained) IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS 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. A continued pubic meeting. Staff has not yet received information from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) regarding this project. DNR Staff informed the City that they had just received the information, themselves, and stated that they would have their evaluation completed by the October 28, 1985, Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commission Minutes 2 October 7, 1985 MOTION• Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Marhula, to continue to the October 28, 1985, Planning Commission meeting pending receipt of the evaluation of the request from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Motion carried--5-0-0 B. FARRINGTON WOODS, by Barnett-Range Corporation. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 31.7 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with variances on 21.6 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-2.5 on 21.6 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 31.7 acres into one lot, one outlot, and road right-of-way, and Environmental Assessment Worksheet Review on 31.7 acres for construction of 252 apartment units. Location: West of U.S. #169, and North of Research Farm. A continued public hearing. The proponents had submitted a letter requesting continuance until the next meeting. They requested additional time to complete the architectural plans prior to Commission review. MOTION: • Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Marhula, to continue to the October 28, 1985, Planning Commission meeting pending completion of revised plans by the proponent. Motion carried--5-0-0 (Dodge arrived at 7:40 p.m.) C. EDEN PRAIRIE CONVENIENCE CENTER, by K. Charles Development Cor- poration. Request for Guide Plan Amendment, Planned Unit Development Concept Review, Zoning District Change from Office to Regional Service, and Preliminary Plat of 2.30 acres for restaurant-tenant retail space. Location: Northwest corner of U.S. Highway #169 and Eden Road. A continued public hearing. Mr. Bob Vanney, representing proponents, reviewed the site characteristics and development plans with the Commission. He explained the orientation of the structure to the adjacent uses and the pond to the north and west. He also reviewed the locations of the proposed site amenities including a gazebo, tot lot, pedestrian trails, etc. Mr. Vanney noted that the architecture of the structure had been coordinated with that of the American Baptist Homes office within the Lake Idlewild Planned Unit Development, of which this development would be a part. Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report of October 4, 1985, explaining the changes which had been made since the original submittal of this project to the City. Hallett asked if Staff was aware of any plans for the signalization of the intersection of Highway #169 and Eden Road. Planner Enger responded that, at some point in time, it likely would be signalized; however, there were no Planning Commission Minutes 3 October 7, 1985 plans to do so in the immediate future. Marhula asked about the Staff Report recommendation for an additional five feet of green space along the eastern frontage of the structure adjacent to Highway #169. He asked if this would cause the building to be moved closer to the lake. Planner Franzen explained that this would result in the structure being closer to the lake, but that proponents were already asking for a variance from the Shoreland Management regulations of the ordinance for this purpose, which was supported by Staff. Planner Franzen added that Staff felt it was necessary to provide adequate space between the structure and Highway #169. Planner Enger stated that it may be possible to reconfigure the structure, itself, it order to make this unnecessary, as an alternative. Mr. Vanney stated that he would be willing to work with Staff to mitigate this issue. Mr. Vanney reviewed the amendment to the mechanical screening for the structure, showing how the mechanical units would be screened from public view. Chairman Schuck asked for comments or questions from members of the audience. There were none. MOTION 1: . Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--6-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of K. Charles Develoment Corporation for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Office to Commercial, based on plans dated October 3, 1985, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated October 4, 1985. Motion carried--6-0-0 MOTION 3: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of K. Charles Development Corporation for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment to the Lake Idlewild Planned Unit Development for a restaurant and other retail space, based on plans dated October 3, 1985, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated October 4, 1985, including the amended mechanical screening plan presented at the meeting. Motion carried--6-0-0 MOTION 4: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett, to recommend to the City Planning Commission Minutes 4 October 7, 1985 Council approval of the request of K. Charles Development Corporation for Preliminary Plat of 2.30 acres into one lot for restaurant and retail uses, based on plans dated October 3, 1985, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated October 4, 1985, including the amended mechanical screening plan presented at the meeting. Motion carried--6-0-0 D. MENARDS EXPANSION, by Menards, Inc. Request for Zoning Amendment within C-Reg-Service District to allow for the construction of a shelter, with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals. Location: Menards , Building, adjacent to Plaza Drive. A public hearing. Mr. Mary Prochaska, Menards, explained that the proposed development was for an amendment to the existing plans to allow for expansion of the board shed on the north end of the site. ' He reviewed the plans for the structure with the Commission. Planner Uram reviewed the findings and conclusions of the Staff Report of October 4, 1985. He pointed out that Staff had two major questions regarding the request: First, considering the existing condition of this area, would it be appropriate to approve an expansion of the use; and, . second, if the expansion were to be approved, should conditions be added to the approval requiring the changes to upgrade the existing portions of the development. Mr. Prochaska stated that he did not feel the existing outside storage area should be changed as it was approved as built. He stated that he had no objection to changing the roof color as suggested in the Staff Report, nor to painting the overhead doors. He stated that he felt additional evergreen plantings as suggested in the Staff Report did not seem appropriate in his opinion, since Menards had built a fence to screen the area from the residential neighborhood to the north. Mr. Prochaska pointed out that final development of the property to the north of the existing development had not yet occurred, therefore, he did not feel it would be necessary to screen this area at this time. Marhula asked if the original approval included provisions for screening of mechanical equipment. Planner Enger stated that the Code provision requiring mechanical screening was not in effect at that time. Mr. Prochaska stated that some of the mechanical units were required to be screened, but others were not. Marhula asked if outside storage had been addressed with the original development, in particular the storage on the west side of the property. Planner Enger stated that one of the problems in this area was that the west side of the structure was brick; however, the brick was not visible because retail materials were stacked against the wall , hiding the brick. Also, It during the time of review of the original proposal, Staff had been concerned about the height of the storage materials, and making certain that the walls proposed around the storage area would be high enough. However, one of the things not anticipated was that the "sign poles" would be higher than the storage materials and the walls screening the storage materials. Planner Planning Commission Minutes 5 October 7, 1985 Enger pointed out that during two subsequent proposals on this property, improvements had been requested to the original Menards structure. Staff was concerned that another storage area had the potential for adding to the "visual clutter" of the site. Marhula stated that he agreed with the concerns of the Staff. He stated that he did not feel it would be appropriate to add outside storage to this site. Chairman Schuck stated that he concurred with Marhula, and wanted to see more detail in order that the City could be assured that this addition would not result in another wall against which to stack building materials. He added that he felt the developer should work with Staff to discuss alternatives for any additions to this site to mitigate the concerns of the Commission and those listed in the Staff Report of October 4, 1985. MOTION 1• Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Gartner, to continue the public hearing to the October 28, 1985, Planning Commission meeting to allow proponent the opportunity to mitigate the matters of concern addressed by the Commission and in the Staff Report of October 4, 1985. Motion carried--6-0-0 E. SIGNATURE II OFFICE BUILDING, by MRTT Joint Venture. Request for Planned Unit Development Amendment Review on 20 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review, with variances, on 20 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to Office on 4.07 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 4.07 acres into one lot for construction of a 54,000 square foot office building. Location: West of U.S. #169, East of City West Parkway. A public hearing. Mr. Tom Gerster, KKE Architects, representing proponents, reviewed the site characteristics and development plan for the property with the Commission. He noted several constraints, including bad soils, which had been factors in the decisions made about the design of the project. Mr. Gerster noted that proponents had prepared a traffic study due to the proposed increase in square footage for the overall Primetech portion of the City West Planned Unit Development of which this development was a part. He stated that the original approval for the Primetech portion of the City West Planned Unit Development was for 181,000 sq. ft. of structures. Proponents were now requesting a total of 230,000 sq. ft. of structures for the same acreage, with the majority of the increase taking place in this parcel and the final and third phase of the Primetech portion of the City West Planned Unit Development. The traffic study done indicated that this would represent an increase in the overall traffic within the City West development of 3.4%, or 75 additional cars during the PM peak hour. Mr. Peter Fausch, traffic consultant for proponents, presented detailed information about the traffic study. He noted that it had been based upon a previous traffic study done by another firm at the time of review of the overall City West Planned Unit Development. The traffic counts for that Planning Commission Minutes 6 October 7, 1985 • original traffic study were done based on no improvements being made to Shady Oak Road or the adjacent highway and freeway systems. The conclusions at that time indicated that traffic at the intersections of City West Parkway and Shady Oak Road would be "Level F," or the worst condition possible. Mr. Fausch stated that conditions existed currently which did not exist at the time of the original traffic study, and some of the detering factors that existed during the original traffic study had since been mitigated. Mr. Gerster then reviewed the architecture and landscaping for the proposed development. He added that, based on the concerns of the Staff Report, and in order to accomplish at least this portion of the remaining Primetech development, proponents were suggesting that the City take action on this parcel alone at this time, leaving decisions about increased traffic, increased square footage in the Primetech area, and other such matters to a time when the last parcel within the Primetech development came before the City for review. Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report of October 4, 1985, with the Commission. He stated that traffic was a major concern in reviewing the proposal . Planner Franzen reviewed alternatives for the development, including reduction of square footage of the structure, or the addition of property to the site in order to accommodate the square footage requested, thereby reducing the size of the remaining and final Primetech development, Phase III. Planner Enger stated that in cases where traffic volumes began reflecting Level of Service F conditions, it was a clue to the Staff that land uses needed to be re-evaluated for a development. He stated that it was not considered responsible planning to approve a situation which was known to be a "worst case" for a development, such as traffic conditions at Level of Service F. Planner Enger added that the original Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the City West Planned Unit Development was based upon a total of 202,000 sq. ft. of structure for this area. If that square footage was to be exceeded, another Environmental Assessment Worksheet would need to be prepared by the developer. With respect to overall land use planning, Planner Enger stated that the City also needed to take into consideration the fact that there would be other uses in the area surrounding the Primetech developments, and he listed the other parcels involved. He noted that the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan land use designations were based partially upon the traffic figures in a given area, or neighborhood, and that, in this case, more than just the City West development made up the neighborhood using the roads in the area. Planner Enger stated that, in Staff's opinion, the traffic matters needed to be dealt with prior to any further action on this portion of Primetech, or Phase II of the Primetech development. Hallett stated that, while he felt the building proposed was attractive, he was concerned about the traffic situation. He stated that this may not be the location for a five-story building. Bye stated that she did not feel it was realistic to assume that there would be a voluntary spreading of peak hour traffic amoungst the uses in the area. Planning Commission Minutes 7 October 7, 1985 • She added that one of the factors considered by future tenants of any structure was accessibility of the structure, which did not seem to be the case with Level of Service F traffic volumes in this area. Chairman Schuck stated that his business was located within the first phase of the Primetech development and that he had noted that traffic had increased significantly in this area since occupying the structure. Mr. Fausch, traffic consultant for proponents, stated that the traffic study done for this particular development had been based upon full development of all the uses mentioned earlier by the Staff. He noted that traffic conditions showed improvement upon completion of road improvements such as left-turn lanes, etc. in the area. Bye asked when such road improvements would be implemented, adding that she did not feel it was appropriate to make decisions at this point in time based on unknown factors which would have a large impact on the development. Mr. Fausch responded that there was no time table set for the road improvements. Chairman Schuck asked for comments or questions from members of the audience. There were none. • Gartner asked what was likely to happen to the property to the north of the City West Development if the owners did not build a facility of their own in that location. Planner Enger stated that the property would possibly be developed in a similar manner to the uses within the City West Development. Planner Enger noted that the City had required a reduction in square footage of developments before based on traffic and listed examples. Mr. Gerster stated that it was proponents' opinion that the amount of increase in traffic was not significant. Mr. Gerster reiterated his request that the City review this request based on its own merits, leaving the other questions about traffic to the time when Phase III of the Primetech development was presented to the City. Chairman Schuck stated that he did not feel the City would be acting responsibly by postponing such decisions to the time of development of Phase III as suggested. Bye concurred, adding that she felt this site and its traffic could have a significant impact on the overall development of this neighborhood. Hallett questioned the transition that would take place between this five- story structure and the remaining 22,000 sq. ft. that would be left for development of Phase III of the property, and suggested that the building may fit the overall development better if it were one story less in height. Marhula stated that he, too, felt that the matters of traffic needed to be resolved with this project and before the development of Phase III of the Primetech development. He stated that he was not willing to grant an implicit approval of a definite square footage for the remaining site in Primetech Phase III without the traffic situation being mitigated. Hallett Planning Commission Minutes 8 October 7, 1985 concurred. MOTION 1: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Marhula, to continue the public hearing to the November 12, 1985, Special Planning Commission meeting to allow proponents the opportunity to resolve the issues raised by the Commission and in the Staff Report dated October 4, 1985. Motion carried--6-0-0 F. HOYT TECH 5, 6, & 7, by Technology Park Associates. Request for Planned Unit Development District Review, with variances, on 17.53 acres, Zoning District Changes from Rural to I-2 Park on 9.27 acres, and Rural to Office on 3.74 acres, with Shoreland Ordinance variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Preliminary Plat of 17.53 acres into two lots and two outlots for construction of two warehouse buildings and one office building, totalling 184,458 square feet. Location: East of Golden Triangle Road and South of West 76th Street. A public hearing. Mr. Brad Hoyt, proponent, reviewed the site characteristics of the property, existing surrounding development, and the proposed project features. Mr. • Hoyt explained that the Floor Area Ratio for the industrial portion of the property was proposed to be 31.4, over the Code maximum of 30.0; however, a three-acre outlot was adjacent to this site and would be dedicated to the City. He was asking for this variance as part of the Planned Unit Development review. Mr. Hoyt stated that he was aware of Staff's concern regarding the diagonal parking on the west perimeter of the industrial site. He stated that, based on experience with this design on other projects, he felt that it would work. He added that he had no objections to the Staff recommendations regarding landscaping. Regarding the proposed office building on the southeast portion of the site, Mr. Hoyt stated that granite would be used as an exterior material for the structure. He reviewed several siting options for the structure on the lot, explaining the difficulties of various footprints of the structure given the site constraints. Mr. Hoyt noted that the Staff Report had suggested one alternative which he preferred, which called for "burying" the parking ramp from view in order to accomplish screening. He stated that he had done comparisons of the costs of the various alternatives suggested and that this one seemed to work best. Planner Enger reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report regarding the development proposal . He noted that the requested variances to the Shoreland Management portion of the ordinance could not be reviewed by the Planned Unit Development Review process, and, therefore, would 10 require action of the Board of Appeals. Planner Enger added that Staff supported the requested variances to the Shoreland regulations based on the design of the site. Planner Enger stated that the changes requested for the parking ramp and Planning Commission Minutes 9 October 7, 1985 i some of the other recommendations of the Staff Report were significant enough to have the item returned to the Planning Commission for additional review. Mr. Hoyt asked the Commission for permission to be scheduled for the November 5, 1985, City Council meeting, noting that he was willing to comply with all the recommendations of the Staff Report and would need time only to put the recommendations into plan format for City review. Chairman Schuck asked for comments or questions from members of the audience. There were none. MOTION: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Dodge, to continue to the October 28, 1985, Planning Commission meeting, pending revision of plans per the recommendations of the Staff Report of October 4, 1985. Further, that the Planning Staff be authorized to publish the item for the November 5, 1985, City Council meeting for public hearing. Motion carried--6-0-0 V. OLD BUSINESS None. VI. NEW BUSINESS None. VII. PLANNER'S REPORT None. VIII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Dodge, seconded by Gartner. Chairman Schuck adjourned the meeting at 11:25 p.m.