Loading...
Planning Commission - 08/25/1986 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, August 25, 1986 7:30 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. J & L SUBDIVISION, by Frank R. Cardarelle. Request for Zoning District Change from R1-22 to R1-13.5 on approximately three acres with Preliminary Plat of approximately three acres into seven single family lots. Location: Southeast quadrant of Blossom Road and Bennett Place. A public hearing. (8:05) B. WILSON LEARNING, by Ryan Construction Company of Minnesota, Inc. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 60.85 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review and Zoning District Amendment with variances within the Office zoning district on 17.19 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 17.19 acres into two lots for construction of a nine-story office building. Location: East of Highway #169, west of Valley View Road, south and west of Flying Cloud 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. MINUTES _ EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, August 25, 1986 School Board Meeting Room 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chairman Robert Hallett, Rich. Anderson, Julianne Bye, Virginia Gartner, Charles Ruebling MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairman Ed Schuck, Christine Dodge STAFF PRESENT: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner; Donald 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 Bye, to approve the minutes of the August 11, 1986, Planning Commission meeting as printed. Motion carried--5-0-0 IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. J & L SUBDIVISION, by Frank R. Cardarelle. Request for Zoning District Change from R1-22 to R1-13.5 on approximately three acres with Preliminary Plat of approximately three acres into seven single family lots. Location: Southeast quadrant of Blossom Road and Bennett Place. A public hearing. Mr. Frank Cardarelle, representing the developer, reviewed the proposed • platting of the property with the Commission. He noted that the property had been platted originally in 1910. Mr. Cardarelle stated that the developer would be petitioning for the public improvements to the property. Planning Commission Minutes 2 August 22, 1986 He stated that they had been working with the property owner to the east to coordinate efforts for development of the land. Planner Uram reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report dated August 22, 1986, regarding the project. In addition to standard requirements regarding grading, utilities, erosion control , streets, and park dedication, other specific concerns about the project were raised by the Staff review. The report also identified concerns regarding tree replacement for those trees located outside of the construction limits which may be damaged, and the need for cooperation with the Prairie Lutheran Church with respect to a petition for a feasibility study for the upgrading of Blossom Road and the proposed street along the eastern property line. Acting Chairman Hallett asked the proponent if they would be able to comply with the recommendations of the Staff Report. Mr. Cardarelle responded that the tree inventory would not be possible until such time as the mortgage was cleared, 'but the inventory would be completed for Staff review. Ruebling asked about connection of the neighborhoods in this area. Planner Uram explained how the neighborhoods would connect by streets and with the idea of providing adequate alternative access points for emergency vehicles. 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 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 Frank Cardarelle for Zoning District Change from R1-22 to R1-13.5 and Preliminary Plat of approximately three acres into seven single family lots, known as the J & L Subdivision, based on plans dated August 5, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated August 22, 1986. Motion carried--5-0-0 B. WILSON LEARNING, by Ryan Construction Company of Minnesota, Inc. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 60.85 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review and Zoning District Amendment with variances within the Office zoning district on 17.19 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 17.19 acres into two lots for construction of a nine-story office building. Location: East of Highway #169, west of Valley View Road, south and west of Flying • Cloud Drive. A public hearing. Mr. Bill McHale, Ryan Construction, stated that the proponents had reviewed the recommendations of the Staff Report and that it was proponent's opinion that all the matters of concern were resolvable. Mr. McHale noted that Planning Commission Minutes 3 August 22, 1986 traffic was the major issue to be dealt with for the project as proposed. He added that the proponent would work with the Staff to resolve the issues, and he stated that the proponent would not be asking for hearing before the City Council prior to resolution of the traffic issues with the City Staff. Mr. Wayne Bishop, architect for the proponent, reviewed the topography of the site, discussed the six-story atrium, and explained the two-level parking ramp, how it functioned, and how it was planned to be an integral part of the site and structure. Mr. Bishop stated that the mechanical equipment for the structure would be located on the rooftop and would be screened by the architecturally integral enclosure represented in the plans. He also reviewed the materials to be used for the exterior of the structure. Mr. Bishop stated that this would be the corporate headquarters for Wilson Learning. They would be occupying a large portion of the structure, with the intent of leasing out the remainder of the structure to office users. Mr. Bishop added that it would be the proponent's preference that the portion of the site not being used by Wilson Learning remain zoned Office, instead of down-zoning the lot to Rural as part of this proposal, as was recommended by the City Staff. Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff • Report of August 22, 1986, regarding the development proposal . In addition to standard requirements regarding grading, utilities, erosion control, streets, and park dedication, other specific concerns about the project were raised by the Staff's review. He stated that it had been detemined that this location represented a keystone site in the community when the development of the property was originally proposed several years ago. Planner Franzen stated that the most significant matter to be dealt with regarding this proposal was traffic. He noted that this had been an issue in this area of the community for several years and that other developments in the area had found it necessary to adjust their proposed uses in order to mitigate the traffic matter. He stated that the traffic study prepared for the City by BRW in 1984 had concluded that it would be necessary to reduce the number of average daily trips in this area by 20% overall . It was pointed out that this reduction would be necessary even after all improvements were installed at all intersections within this area. With respect to the proposed Wilson Learning development, Planner Franzen stated that there had been a change in the amount of traffic that would be generated from the site. While Wilson Learning's offices- had been planned as a use on this property previously and that information had been included in the traffic study prepared by BRW, the current proposal was for a greater amount of office use and a lesser amount of warehouse use than originally proposed, thereby impacting the traffic figures. He stated that, based on the information provided by the proponents todate, the project would generate more traffic than the road system could adequately handle. • Planner Franzen stated that the proponents had met with Staff just prior to the meeting and informed Staff that additional information was forthcoming regarding the traffic generation from the proposed development. For example, the atrium, which was six stories high, would not be used as office Planning Commission Minutes 4 August 22, 1986 space, and, therefore, the square footage of this portion of the structure could be eliminated from any trip generation figures. He pointed out that this had been done previously for the Southwest Crossing I structure. Planner Franzen stated that Staff would be willing to look at any such additional information from the developer, but that, based on the current information, the concerns regarding traffic remained. Mr. McHale reiterated that the proponent would not be requesting review by the Council until the City was comfortable with the traffic information presented for the development. He stated that he felt confident that the additional detailed information that would be provided would answer questions regarding traffic and indicate a significant reduction in the trip generation from the proposed development. Bye asked what the impact of removing the square footage for the atrium would do in terms of reduction to the number of trips generated from the proposed development. Planner Franzen stated that it would be approximately a five-to-ten percent reduction. Anderson asked about the proposed division of the property into two lots. Mr. McHale responded that lot proposed for the Wilson Learning Center headquarters was slightly larger than the lot proposed to be left undeveloped at this time. Anderson asked about the potential for traffic • generation from the parcel that was not proposed for development at this time. Planner Franzen stated that there would be traffic generated from this site, but that the amount of traffic was currently unknown. He pointed out that the City would not be able to review any proposed use unless the developer was required to apply for a zoning district change for the property. Planner Franzen stated that certain uses, such as hotels, had much less impact on the PM peak hour traffic, than office uses, and that other uses may be appropriate for the undeveloped lot. Therefore, in order to assure the future review of this development and its potential for traffic generation, Staff had recommended that the lot proposed to be left undeveloped should be rezoned to Rural at this time, until a final use of the parcel could be reviewed by the City. Acting Chairman Hallett stated that he did not feel it would be appropriate to allow for an increase in the allowable trip generation for the site by recommending approval of a use which exceeded the recommended traffic generation rates of the BRW traffic study. He stated that he agreed with Staff regarding the recommendation to rezone the undeveloped parcel as Rural. Ruebling asked for explanation of the trip generation numbers provided by the proponent compared to trip generation numbers provided by the BRW study. Mr. McHale and Planner Franzen explained the assumptions used for the respective results. Mr. Bob Brown, Wilson Learning, stated that their consultants had discussed • the actual uses within the structure with representatives of BRW. He stated that BRW had indicated to them that their assumptions regarding reduced trip generation may have merit, but that BRW wanted to have more exact numbers to work with prior to drawing any conclusions. Planning Commission Minutes 5 August 22, 1986 • Mr. Brown added that Wilson Learning currently was the owner of other acreage within the Wilson Ridge Planned Unit Development, as well . The Commission discussed details of the traffic information with the proponents and Staff. It was pointed out that the entire second floor of the structure would be designated as classroom space, with the overwhelming majority of those occupying that space being bussed to the facility, thereby reducing the number of trips during the peak hour. It was also pointed out that the Wilson Learning employees were all on flexible work schedules, not the standard work hours, which also reduced the number of trips generated during peak hour traffic periods. In addition, approximately 25% of the employees for the company were considered "nation-wide" employees who spent the majority of their time travelling across the country, with perhaps a few days per month spent in the headquarters building. This, too, would reduce the trip generation for peak hour traffic. Proponents added that the majority of the employees involved in the company were professionals, therefore having "professional" sized offices which were generally larger than average office space. Because of this, less people per square foot occupied a building such as the one proposed, thereby reducing trip generation. Gartner asked what the proposed height of the structure was. Planner Franzen stated that it would be approximately 110 ft. He noted that the maximum height of structures allowed within the Office District was 30 ft. ; however, it had been determined that this property was within the Major Center Area Planned Unit Developmment, which allowed for greater height of all structures. Gartner asked if the City required more open space around a structure if the height exceeded the maximum height allowed in the district. Planner Franzen stated that there was no such provision in the Code currently. Anderson stated that he felt the structure was attractive and that it fit the City's idea for being a "keystone" development on this property. Gartner stated that she concurred about the aesthetics of the proposed development. Bye stated that she was concerned about what exact materials would be used on the exterior of the structure, since samples of the aggregate material , windows, etc., were not available at the meeting. Proponents agreed that samples of the materials would be provided to the City prior to construction. Gartner stated that she felt sight lines from Highway #169 would be helpful in further review of the development proposal . She asked how tall the mature trees were on the property. Mr. McHale responded that they were approximately three, or four, stories high. Ruebling stated that he felt the architectural design of the building was . outstanding and the type of structure which was appropriate for this keystone site in the community, and that it was important to keep good commercial residents in the community like Wilson Learning. He added that he was still concerned about traffic generation, however, and that he felt that the traffic issues needed to be satisfactorily addressed prior to Planning Commission Minutes 6 August 22, 1986 review by the City Council . He noted that the City needed to be concerned, also, about any future users of the structure if Wilson Learning decided to sell the building. Mr. McHale stated that Wilson Learning was planning to own' the structure and occupy for many years to come. Ruebling asked how much time would be necessary for the proponents to complete the additional information requested. Mr. McHale stated that it would take approximately one, or two, weeks. Mr.- Frank Smetana, 7680 Smetana Lane, asked about specific location of the site with respect to his own property. Mr. McHale reviewed the location with Mr. Smetana. Mr. Smetana asked if the hill would be removed, or graded in any way. Mr. McHale responded that it would be regraded for purposes of reshaping the hill, with approximately four feet being removed from the top of the hill. Mr. Smetana stated that there were difficulties with soot filtering into his home during the construction of another building in this area and he asked that necessary precautions be taken to avoid that occurence during the construction of the Wilson Learning structure. Ms. Marilyn Heath, 7665 Smetana Lane, stated that she was against the project if it meant that the citizens of Eden Prairie would be paying greater taxes. She asked if the City would be liable if the same type of polluting soot resulted from the construction of this structure. Acting Chairman Hallett stated that she would have to discuss that with an attorney. Mr. Pat Ryan, Ryan Construction, stated that they would be using a pre-cast panel, manufactured in another location, not at the site near the homes on Smetana Lane, and that all the materials would be reviewed by the Building Department prior to use on the property. Mrs. Pat Kosteka, 10805 Valley View Road, stated that she felt it was unrealistic to assume that this area would not develop. She added that she felt the proponents were presenting a high-quality building and stated that she felt it would be an asset to the community. Mrs. Kosteka stated that her major concern was that of traffic. Acting Chairman Hallett stated that he felt Staff should review the City's policies regarding the amount of open space for a structure in relation to the height of the structure. He suggested that other communities also be surveyed as to how they handled such issues. Acting Chairman Hallett stated that he felt it would be appropriate for the Commission to direct the Staff to publish this item for the next City Council meeting, but that he also felt that the traffic issues should again • be reviewed by the Planning Commission prior to review by the Council . Commissioners Bye, Gartner, and Ruebling indicated their preference for the item to return to the Planning Commission within two weeks for review of the traffic information ,prior to Council review. Planning Commission Minutes 7 August 22, 1986 Acting Chairman Hallett asked proponents if it would be possible to have the information to Staff in time for review for the next Planning Commission meeting, two weeks away. Mr. Ryan responded that he felt that the majority of the information would be available within one week, or so, but added that the more detailed traffic information would be dependent upon the schedule of BRW, traffic consultants. Acting Chairman Hallett stated ' that the traffic information was key to the review of the development and that he felt it was necessary prior to the Commission making a recommendation to the City Council. Mr. McHale reiterated his earlier statement that the proponents would not ask to be forwarded to the City Council until the traffic issues had been mitigated. He added that he was confident' that the adjustments to the trip generation numbers discussed earlier in the evening would show that the use would work on the property as proposed. MOTION: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to continue the item to the September 8, 1986, Planning Commission meeting pending receipt of additional traffic and other information discussed at this meeting and in the Staff Report of August 22, 1986. 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 Anderson. Acting Chairman Hallett adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m. •