Planning Commission - 11/25/1985 AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, November 25, 1985
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; Don Uram, Assistant Planner; Kate Karnas,
Administrative Assistant
Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
III. MINUTES
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
(7:30) A. MENARDS EXPANSION, by Menards, Inc. Request for Zoning Amendment
within C-Regional Service District for the construction of an
accessory building. Location: Menards Building, adjacent to Plaza
Drive. A continued public hearing.
(8:00) B. CITY WEST REPLAT, by Ryan Properties. Inc. Request for Preliminary
Plat of 19.5 acres into three lots within the City West Business
Center. Location: North of Shady Oak Road, West of City West
Parkway. A public hearing.
(8:10) C. DOUGLAS CORPORATION HEADQUARTERS, by Opus Corporation. Request for
Planned Unit Development Concept Review on approximately 68 acres
for construction of 320,000 square feet of office/warehouse.
Location: Highway #169 and Anderson Lakes Parkway. A public
hearing.
(9:10) D. EDEN SQUARE, by Commercial Partners, Inc. Request for Planned Unit
Development Amendment Review and Zoning Amendment on 9.59 acres and
Preliminary Plat of 11.73 acres into three lots for construction of
a 83,500 square foot commercial mall . Location: Northeast quadrant
of the intersection of Highway #169 and Prairie Center Drive. A
public hearing.
(10:00) E. ARTEKA NURSERY, by Arteka, Inc. Request for Zoning District Change
of 0.5 acres of excess right-of-way from Rural to Community
Commercial within the Arteka Nursery. A public meeting.
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.
MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, November 25, 1985
School Board Meeting Room
7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ed Schuck, Julianne Bye, Virginia Gartner (7:40
p.m.), Robert Hallett, Dennis Marhula
MEMBERS ABSENT: Christine Dodge, 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 Marhula, seconded by Bye, to approve the agenda as
• printed.
Motion carried--4-0-0
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
None.
III. MINUTES
MOTION:
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Hallett, to approve the minutes of
the November 12, 1985, Special Planning Commission meeting as printed.
Motion carried--4-0-0
(Gartner arrived at 7:40 p.m.)
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. MENARDS EXPANSION, by Menards, Inc. Request for Zoning District
Amendment within the C-Reg-Service District for the construction of
an accessory building. Location: Menards Building, adjacent to
Plaza Drive. A continued public meeting.
it Mr. Mary Prochaska, representing Menard's, reviewed the changes in the
plans, responsive to Commission concerns from the meeting of October 28,
1985.
Planning Commission Minutes 2 November 25, 1985
Planner Uram reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report
regarding the proposed changes. He noted that proponents had met every
concern of the Commission mentioned at the previous meeting reviewing the
project, with the exception of the storage materials located against the
brick wall on the west side of the building.
Chairman Schuck asked for comments, or questions, from members of the
audience. There were none.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Gartner, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Menard's for Zoning District Amendment
within the C-Reg-Service District for construction of an accessory building,
based on plans dated November 19, and November 25, 1985, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Reports dated October 25, and November 22,
1985.
Motion carried--5-0-0
B. CITY WEST REPLAT, by Ryan Properties. Inc. Request for Preliminary
Plat of 19.5 acres into three lots within the City West Business
Center. Location: North of Shady Oak Road, West of City West
. Parkway. A public hearing.
Planner Enger reviewed the request of the proponents for relocation of a lot
line between two properties in order to provide additional parking for one
of the lots. He stated that the only manner in which this could happen was
through a preliminary plat process.
Chairman Schuck asked for comments, or questions from members of the
audience. There were none.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to close the public hearing.
Motion carried--5-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Ryan Properties, Inc., for Preliminary
Plat of 19.3 acres into three lots, all within the City West Business
Center, based on plans dated November 4, 1985.
Motion carried--5-0-0
C. DOUGLAS CORPORATION HEADQUARTERS, by Opus Corporation. Request for
Planned Unit Development Concept Review on approximately 68 acres
for construction of 320,000 square feet of office/warehouse.
Location: Highway #169 and Anderson Lakes Parkway. A public
hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes 3 November 25, 1985
Mr. Arlyn Gruessing, representing Douglas Corporation, gave a brief history
of the company, its functions, and its products. He provided examples of
the product manufactured by Douglas, explaining that they manufactured
nameplates for identification purposes for many types of products. Mr.
Gruessing stated that Douglas currently had over 500 employees all scattered
around the Twin Cities Area in various buildings. He noted that one of the
purposes for purchasing such a large site was to consolidate all the uses
and to allow for any future expansion needs for the company at least to the
year 2000.
Mr. Gruessing stated that there were other factors involved in the
corporation's selection of this site, including proximity to Flying Cloud
Airport, the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport, I-494, and Highway
#169. In addition, Mr. Gruessing stated that Douglas Corporation felt it
would be a mutual advantage to be located so close to the Hennepin County
Vo-Tech for purposes of training and availability of employees.
Regarding the park facilities shown at the southern end of the property, Mr.
Gruessing noted that they had held preliminary discussions with the Vo-Tech
to discuss the school 's needs for park facilities. The facilities shown
were intended to be shared between Douglas Corporation and the Vo-Tech.
Mr. Greg Nook, Opus Corporation, representing proponent, reviewed the site
characteristics and discussed the design of the development with the
Commission. He stated that all of the concerns of Staff, including the
number of parking spaces for the development, screening of mechanical
equipment, etc., had been reviewed by the proponent and that these matters
could be dealt with in greater detail as the plan proceeded through the
review process. He stated that proponents were willing to work with the
City in all these matters.
Mr. Mitch Wonson, Benshoof and Associates, traffic consultants for
proponent, stated that, based on studies performed on the proposed
development, the amount of traffic generated from this use would be less
than half of the amount that would be generated by the current land use
designations for the site.
Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and conclusions of the Staff Report of
November 22, 1985, with the Commission. He stated that, by comparison, this
proposed development appeared to be similar to other industrial uses within
the community, noting the massive view of the structures, as an example.
The development proposed 87% industrial use within the structures and 13%
office use. It was noted in the Staff Report that this proposed industrial
use would be visible from Staring Lake and the Ridgewood West neighborhoods,
visually impacting both areas. The site plan for the development did not
convey the typical business campus image with special site features such as
heavy landscaping, recreational amenities, office-type architecture. The
site plan indicated large and numerous mechanical units and that there would
be significant truck traffic involved with the development.
The Staff Report also dealt with the concern for a balance of uses within
the Comprehensive Guide Plan, noting that the proposal would eliminate a
significant amount of land for housing purposes within the community. The
proposal represented a 1,000-1,200 unit decrease in the number of housing
Planning Commission Minutes 4 November 25, 1985
i
units for the community.
Gartner stated that she felt the project was potentially a good one for this
site, given that the development would be owner-occupied. She expressed
concern that the recreational space at the south end of the development be
properly controlled so as to make sure the recreational uses were permanent.
Bye concurred that the site design was a good one. She stated that her
overriding concern was the impact of converting so many acres designated for
residential use to industrial use. She questioned how many times this had
been done in the past and whether the City's housing stock would be strongly
impacted by such a conversion.
Marhula stated that he was aware that the City had converted a substantial
amount of property from Medium Density Residential to Low Density
Residential over the years. He stated that the City had, at those times,
acted on the best information available.
Planner Enger explained that the City had set a goal to have a balance
between the number of jobs in the community and the number of households in
the community so that people working in the City could live in the City. He
stated that the elimination of this area as a housing designated use would
be significant and would impact the existing balance of the Comprehensive
. Plan.
Chairman Schuck stated he was concerned about the power and utility
requirements for such a large manufacturing use. He also expressed concern
about the amount of industrial use that would be within the community
compared to other communities. Chairman Schuck noted that Eden Prairie
already had a larger percentage of industrial use than many of its
surrounding neighbors.
Mr. Gruessing stated that not all 95 acres were proposed for conversion from
residential to industrial use, but less than 30 acres were proposed to be so
converted. He stated that the remainder of the property would be proposed
for Open Space, or Office, use.
Marhula asked if the proponents had considered moving the proposed
industrial facility closer to Highway #169, thereby eliminating less of the
residential use of the existing Comprehensive Guide Plan. Mr. Gruessing
stated that this had been considered; however, it had been determined, that
the north-south collector street was too important to circulation for the
site in general to be relocated, or even eliminated, as would happen with
shifting of the industrial use closer to Highway #169.
Bye asked if it would proponents knew when they may need to expand their
facilities into the proposed recreation area at the south end of the
property. Mr. Gruessing stated that it would likely be after the year 2000.
Marhula asked if the north-south collecter street paralleling Highway #169
was necessary for traffic circulation. Planner Enger replied that the road
was considered necessary based on existing Comprehensive Guide Plan
designations of the property. He stated that it may not be necessary with
the plan proposed by Douglas Corporation.
Planning Commission Minutes 5 November 25, 1985
Marhula stated that he would like more information on the impact of the
proposed land use change on the balance of the Comprehensive Guide Plan. He
stated that he had the same concerns as those listed in the Staff Report
regarding the balance of uses. Marhula added that he did feel the plan, as
presented, had merit, however. Other Commissioners concurred.
Hallett stated that he felt it would be important to have a "permanent"
dedication of the property at the south end of the proposed development for
use as open space.
Chairman Schuck asked for comments, or questions, from members of the
audience. There were none.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Gartner, to continue this item to
the December 9, 1985, Planning Commission meeting pending additional
information from Staff regarding the balance of the Comprehensive Guide
Plan.
Motion carried--5-0-0
D. EDEN SQUARE, by Commercial Partners, Inc. Request for Planned Unit
• Development Amendment Review and Zoning Amendment on 9.59 acres and
Preliminary Plat of 11.73 acres into three lots for construction of
a 83,500 square foot commercial mall . Location: Northeast quadrant
of the intersection of Highway #169 and Prairie Center Drive. A
public hearing.
Mr. Peter Jarvis, BRW, representing proponents, reviewed the site
characteristics and design of the development with the Commission. He also
reviewed the proposed development in relation to the adjacent major roads
already in place.
Mr. Harold Skjelbostad, BRW, landscape architect for proponents, reviewed
the landscape plan with the Commission, explaining the screening which would
be accomplished by the planted materials.
Mr. David Shea, Shea Architects, representing proponents, reviewed the
architecture of the development as it related to Highway #169 and the
interior parking area of the site.
Planner Franzen explained the findings and conclusions of the Staff Report
of November 22, 1985. He noted that, since the report had been completed,
the proponents had amended their plans to be in compliance with the issues
of concern described by Staff in the report. Planner Franzen stated that,
with the changes made by proponents, Staff would recommend approval of the
plans, subject to the following conditions: grading, drainage, utility, and
erosion control plans were to be submitted for review and approval by the
Watershed District; utility easements, as determined necessary by the City
Engineer, were to be dedicated to the City; Cash Park Fees were to be paid
prior to building permit issuance; proponents were to notify the City and
Watershed District at least 48 hours prior to grading; ,details and examples
of materials for exterior materials, lighting, and signage, were to be
Planning Commission Minutes 6 November 25, 1985
submitted to Staff for review and approval prior to building permit
issuance; and proponents were to receive review and approval of the
requested variance for the number of parking stalls for the property from
the Board of Appeals.
Bye stated that she felt this was a cornerstone site within the community
and expressed concern about signage. She stated that she felt the signage
should be well integrated into the design.
Planner Enger explained how the signage would be integrated into the
architecture of the site to blend with the design of the buildings.
Chairman Schuck asked for comments, or questions, from members of the
audience. There were none.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Bye, to close the public hearing.
Motion carried--5-0-0
MOTION 2:
. Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Commercial Partners, Inc., for Planned
Unit Development Amendment Review and Zoning District Amendment within the
C-Reg-Sery District for 9.59 acres for construction of an 83,500 sq. ft.
commercial mall to be known as Eden Square, based on plans dated November
22, and November 25, 1985, subject to the recommendations of the Staff
Report dated November 22, 1985, and the conditions of approval stated at the
Planning Commission meeting of November 25, 1985.
Motion carried--5-0-0
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Commercial Partners, Inc., for
Preliminary Plat approval for 11.73 into three lots for construction of an
83,500 sq. ft. commercial mall to be known as Eden Square, based on plans
dated November 22, and November 25, 1985, subject to the recommendations of
the Staff Report dated November 22, 1985, and the conditions of approval
stated at the Planning Commission meeting of November 25, 1985.
Motion carried--5-0-0
E. ARTEKA NURSERY, by Arteka, Inc. Request for Zoning District Change
of 0.5 acres of excess right-of-way from Rural to Community
Commercial within the Arteka Nursery. A public meeting.
Mr. Peter Stalland, attorney for proponents, stated that the request before
the Commission was for rezoning from Rural to Community Commercial of a
small parcel of property which had been deeded back to the property owners
by the County because the County had determined that it was excess right-of-
way.
Planning Commission Minutes 7 November 25, 1985
Planner Enger explained that the majority of the site was already zoned as
Community Commercial and that there was a proposal for a tennis club to be
built on the property, which would be reviewed at the Commission's next
meeting. He noted that this rezoning would be subject to all the standard
conditions of any rezoning processed through the City, including the
execution of a developer's agreement.
Marhula noted that there appeared to be an overlap in the legal descriptions
for the properties involved. Mr. Stalland explained that the County was
aware of this problem and was in the process of correcting it.
Chairman Schuck asked for comments, or questions, from members of the
audience. There were none.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Arteka, Inc., for Zoning District Change
of 0.5 acre of excess right-of-way from Rural to Community Commercial within
the Arteka Nursery.
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 Bye. Chairman Schuck
adjourned the meeting at 11:00 p.m.