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.
•