Loading...
Planning Commission - 05/27/1986 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION ;esday, May 27, 1986 '0 P.M. COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman Ed Schuck, Richard Anderson, Julianne Bye, Christine Dodge, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett, Charles Ruebling 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 (7:35) A. CMS REGIONAL HEADQUARTERS, by Welsh Construction Corp. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment Review on approximately 100 acres, PUD District Review on approximately 23 acres with variances, Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 Park on 3.24 acres, and Preliminary Platting of 5.25 acres into 2 lots for construction of a 33,000 square foot building. Location: West of Executive Drive, north and east of Equitable Drive. A public hearing. 05) B. IDLEWILD OFFICE CENTER 3RD ADDITION, by Land'Sake, Inc. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to Office on 0.66 acres with shoreland and parking setback variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, and Preliminary Platting of 2.1 acre into 1 lot and 1 outlot for construction of a 14,000 square foot building. Location: West of Highway #169, north of Eden Road. A public hearing. (8:35) C. WESTWOOD INDUSTRIAL PARK, by Hoyt Development, Inc. Request for Preliminary Plat of 4.58 acres into 2 lots with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals. Location: West of Bury Drive, east of Carlson Drive. A public hearing. 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. 0 MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, May 27, 1986 Special Meeting School Board Meeting Room 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chairman Robert Hallett, Rich Anderson, Christine Dodge, Virginia Gartner, Chuck Ruebling MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairman Ed Schuck, Julianne Bye. STAFF PRESENT: Michael D. 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 Anderson, 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 Anderson, to approve the minutes of the May 12, 1986, Planning Commission meeting as printed. Motion carried--5-0-0 IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. CMS REGIONAL HEADQUARTERS, by Welsh Construction Corp. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment Review on approximately 100 acres, PUD District Review on approximately 23 acres with variances, Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 Park on 3.24 acres, and Preliminary Platting of 5.25 acres into 2 lots for construction of a 33,000 square foot building. Location: West of Executive Drive, north and east of Equitable Drive. A public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes 2 May 27, 1986 Mr. Paul Dunn, Welsh Construction, reviewed the proposed development for a regional headquarters for the CMS company, currently located in Minneapolis. Mr. Darrell Anderson, architect for proponent, reviewed the uses proposed within the structure, noting the location of the proposed addition of 7,000 sq. ft. along the west side of the lot. Mr. Anderson also reviewed the landscape plan for the site and provided examples of the exterior building materials for the development. He pointed out that the building would be brick, glass, and tile, with the exception of the loading dock area. Mr. Anderson stated that the proponents would like to lower the height of the berms for the development from eight feet to three feet to allow the structure to be more visible from the public roads. Planner Uram reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report of May 23, 1986. Gartner asked Staff about the impact of lowering of the berms by five feet, as proposed by the developer. Planner Uram stated that the berms were necessary for the purpose of screening parking areas, and that if the proponents were able to illustrate that the parking would be screened, as required by Code, then the lowering of the berm height would not impact the site development. Ruebling asked how many employees would be located at this site. Mr. Dunn responded that there would be approximately 35 employees for this use. Dodge asked about the "second retaining wall" referred to in the Staff Report. Mr. Anderson explained that there was currently a 3-to-1 slope proposed between this property and the property to the east. He stated that, if Welsh was able to control the lot in terms of development in the future, that the lot line could be developed without the need for a retaining wall and to the benefit of both lot owners. However, since it was not currently known if Welsh would control the lot, they were not able to agree to mutually acceptable grading for the two sites. Mr. Anderson stated that it would be Welsh's intention to do so upon obtaining control of the lot to the east. Mr. Dunn stated that the question of control of the lot would be answered within 30 days and that he intended to work with City Staff on this matter. Acting Chairman Hallett asked about screening of the project from the lot to the west. Mr. Anderson explained that the building to the west would act as a screen for this development to any other properties to the west. He noted that, while the lot to the west was part of the proposed preliminary plat with this development, no user was yet identified for the site. Acting Chairman Hallett asked if there would be screening between the two lots proposed to be created by the preliminary plat currently requested. Mr. Anderson stated that the building on the adjacent lot to the west would be oriented toward the southwest, and that the only view of the property to the east upon which the building was proposed would be of a single row of parking. Acting Chairman Hallett asked if there would be views available from the office portion of the proposed structure to Purgatory Creek. Mr. Anderson Planning Commission Minutes 3 May 27, 1986 responded that there would be views to the creek until such time as another structure was built on the south side of Equitable Drive. Acting Chairman Hallett asked for comments, or questions, from members of the audience. There were none. MOTION 1: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Ruebling, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--5-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Ruebling, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Welsh Construction for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment of approximately 100 acres known as the Edenvale 9th Addition Planned Unit Development for the CMS Regional Headquarters, based on plans dated May 8, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated May 23, 1986. Motion carried--5-0-0 i MOTION 3: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Ruebling, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Welsh Construction for Planned Unit Development District Review, with variances, and Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 Park for 3.24 acres for the CMS Regional Headquarters, based on plans dated May 8, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated May 23, 1986. Motion carried--5-0-0 MOTION 4: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Ruebling, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Welsh Construction for Preliminary Plat of 5.25 acres into two lots for the CMS Regional Headquarters, based on plans dated May 8, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated May 23, 1986. Motion carried--5-0-0 B. IDLEWILD OFFICE CENTER 3RD ADDITION, by Land'Sake, Inc. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to Office on 0.66 acres with shoreland and parking setback variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, and Preliminary Platting of 2.1 acre into 1 lot and 1 outlot for construction of a 14,000 square foot building. Location: West of Highway #169, north of Eden Road. A public hearing. Mr. Tom Heiberg, President, Land 'Sake, Inc., reviewed the proposed development with the Commission. He explained the design of the site based Planning Commission Minutes 4 May 27, 1986 on the topography and the constraints of Lake Idlewild and also reviewed the architecture of the structure and proposed site circulation. Mr. Heiberg stated that proponents were requesting the 17.5 ft. front yard setback variance, consistent with the variance granted for development of the site to the east. Planner Uram reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report of May 23, 1986. Gartner asked about the control of the level of the lake. Planner Franzen stated that the Engineering Department had installed a control structure at the northwest portion of the lake. Ruebling asked if tenants had been found for this building. Mr. Heiberg responded that the lower level of the structure and about half of the upper level had been spoken for at this time. Acting Chairman Hallett asked if there were fish in this lake and if the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources had proposed stocking of the lake. Planner Franzen stated that he was unaware of any plans of the Department of Natural Resources to stock the lake with fish. Acting Chairman Hallett asked if a trail would be located around the entire • perimeter of the lake. Planner Franzen responded that there would be a trail around most of the lake, but that the entire lake perimeter was not under the control of this developer. Acting Chairman Hallett stated that he felt this should be pursued in order to allow for access to this lake by the public, in particular, the employees of the Rosemount office to the west. He stated that a trail would allow access for fishing in the lake, if there were fish available. Gartner asked if Staff was satisfied that the requested Shoreland Management variances requested would not harm the quality of the lake. Planner Franzen stated that any development of the property surrounding this lake would require variance to the Shoreland Management provisions of the Code. He stated that Staff was controlling the visual impact upon the lake through site plan development proposals, and that Staff had encouraged a natural vegetative transition between the lake and any structures for each of the development proposals in this vicinity. He pointed out that the trail would _ be located at least two feet abouve the Normal Ordinary High Water Mark in order to allow its use by the public. Gartner asked about the impact of the development of this property on the water quality of the lake. Planner Uram stated that there were catch basins located on the property which directed run-off waters to the east. He noted that the matter of water quality would also be reviewed by the Engineering Department and the Watershed District. Also, Planner Uram stated that this development was currently under review by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, as required by State Statute and City Code. Mr. Heiberg stated that there had been a sedimentation device installed in the road at the time utilities were extended to service this property for purposes of controlling water quality, noting that this was a requirement of the Watershed District at the time of their review. Planning Commission Minutes 5 May 27, 1986 Mr. Heiberg added that he was aware that the lake was being fished currently by residents. Acting Chairman Hallett asked if an additional traffic signal would be required at the corner of Eden Road and Highway #169 because of the development of this property. Planner Franzen stated that a signal may be warranted eventually, but that none was required at this time. He noted that currently traffic was directed to the intersection of Singletree Lane and Highway #169, which was a signalized intersection. Mr. Heiberg noted that the driveway of this site lined up with Glen Lane, which led directly to Singletree Lane for purposes of directing traffic to the signalized intersection. Acting Chairman Hallett asked for comments and questions from members of the audience. There were none. MOTION 1: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Anderson, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--5-0-0 • MOTION 2: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Anderson, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Land 'Sake, Inc., for Zoning District Change from Rural to Office on 0.66 acres, with Shoreland Management and parking setback variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, for construction of a 14,000 sq. ft. office building, based on plans dated May 4, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report of May 23, 1986, with the added condition that Staff review the potential impact of run-off on the water quality of the lake and upon any fish within the lake. Motion carried--5-0-0 MOTION 3: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Anderson, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Land 'Sake, Inc., for Preliminary Plat of 2.1 acres into one lot and one outlot, for construction of a 14,000 sq. ft. office building, based on plans dated May 4, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated May 23, 1986, with the added condition that Staff review the potential impact of run-off on the water quality of the lake and upon any fish within the lake. Motion carried--5-0-0 . C. WESTWOOD INDUSTRIAL PARK, by Hoyt Development. Request for Preliminary Plat of 4.58 acres into 2 lots with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals. Location: West of Bury Drive, east of Carlson Drive. A public hearing. Mr. Brad Hoyt, proponent, explained the impact of the proposed plat on the Planning Commission Minutes 6 May 27, 1986 lot as it currently existed. He pointed out that the proposed lot line would be located in the center of an area proposed for a joint driveway between the lots at this time. He stated that the reason for the proposed plat was due to the request of the tenants of the existing structure, Plantscape, to purchase their building, and, therefore, the land. Mr. Hoyt stated that he was concerned with the recommendation of the Staff Report that an additional 8,000 ft. of green space be required on the new, vacant lot. He stated that he would prefer to split the required additional green space between the two lots, instead, due to the impact the recommendation would have on the floor area ratio for the vacant lot. Mr. Hoyt pointed out that Plantscape had an "extra" 5,800 square feet of green space beyond the Code requirement on their property, which was currently heavily landscaped due to the nature of their business. Mr. Hoyt stated that there were other constraints on the property, as well , including 30 ft. of poor soils, which limited the location of any structure on the vacant lot. Planner Franzen stated that the recommendation was as a result of the requirement of the original plans for this development, including requirement for screening this use from the adjacent residential uses. He pointed out that both lots would have a small amount of street frontage, • therefore, a small amount of green space required for front yard setback, compared to the average industrial lot. Anderson stated that he did not feel all the green space requirements for both lots should be satisfied by one lot. Ruebling asked if the proponent would be required to provide the additional 8,000 sq. ft. of green space if the property was not split. Planner Franzen stated that it would not be required in that case. Ruebling stated that he felt green space for the property was necessary, but added that he was unsure how much should be assigned to each lot. He stated that it would depend a great deal upon the design of the site. Acting Chairman Hallett stated that he felt green space was important, but that he did not feel that bad soils were a reason for not requiring the standard amount of green space for the development. Anderson concurred. Mr. Hoyt stated that he did not feel that the vacant lot should be solely responsible for the 8,000 sq. ft. requirement of green space. Planner Franzen stated that Staff would be willing to work with the proponent to see if a lot line shift, or other alternatives, would be to be benefit of both the proponent and the City to provide adequate green space for the two lots. • Acting Chairman Hallett stated that he felt this was a situation that could be mitigated between Staff and the proponent. Other Commissioners concurred. Acting Chairman Hallett asked for comments and questions from members of the Planning Commission Minutes 7 May 27, 1986 audience. There were none. MOTION 1: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Anderson, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--5-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Anderson, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Hoyt Development for Preliminary Plat of 4.58 acres into two lots, with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, based on plans dated May 2, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated May 23, 1986, and subject to review of the green space balance between the two lots by Staff, in accordance with the concerns of the Commission at this meeting, prior to review of the request by the Board of Appeals. Motion carried--5-0-0 V. OLD BUSINESS • Williams Mini-Storage Proposal Planner Franzen reported that the Williams Mini-Storage proposal had been withdrawn by the proponent, prior to Council review. A new proposal, potentially by other developers, would be before the Commission in the future. Grading Permit for "Linden Ponds" Development Area Planner Franzen reported that, at the request of the Planning Commission, Staff had reviewed the grading permit for the Linden Ponds area in detail, after complaints received at the meeting of May 12, 1986. He reported that the developers were basically found to be in compliance with the requirements of the permit and that corrections were made in the areas noted. Planner Franzen reported that the trees which were reportedly cut on the property had all been trees that had been marked as diseased by the City Forester. Prairie Courts Traffic Study Planner Franzen reported that the traffic study for the intersection of Highway #5 and County Road #4 had been scoped by the Staff and that the proponents of the Prairie Courts development and the proposed bank development at that intersection had been informed of the requirement for the traffic study prior to consideration by the City of any further development at this intersection. He added that it was possible that these two developments could be before the Commission within six, or eight, weeks, pending receipt of the traffic study. Planning Commission Minutes 8 May 27, 1986 VI. NEW BUSINESS None. VII. PLANNER'S REPORT None. VIII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Ruebling, seconded by Anderson. Acting Chairman Hallett adjourned the meeting at 8:55 p.m.