Planning Commission - 09/12/2005 APPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2005 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER
Council Chambers
8080 Mitchell Road
BOARD MEMBERS: Larry Kacher, John Kirk, Vicki Koenig,
Kathy Nelson, Peter Rocheford, Fred Seymour,
Ray Stoelting, Jon Stoltz,William Sutherland
STAFF MEMBERS: Stu Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources
Al Gray, City Engineer
Mike Franzen, City Planner
Julie Krull, Recording Secretary
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—ROLL CALL
Chair Stoelting called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Absent: Kacher, Nelson, and
Rocheford.
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION by Koenig, seconded by Stoltz, to approve the agenda. Motion carried 6-0.
III. MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 23, 2005
MOTION by Koenig, seconded by Kirk, to approve the minutes. Motion carried 6-0.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 22, 2005
Koenig had an amendment to page 2, paragraph 6 & 7. She would like the first sentence
of paragraph 7 to be the second sentence of paragraph 6. It should read as follows: Kirk
stated that he agrees with Stoltz and has three concerns. Koenig asked Kirk to explain his
three concerns.
MOTION by Stoltz, seconded by Koenig, to approve the minutes. Motion carried 6-0.
IV. PUBLIC MEETING
Planning Commission Minutes
September 12, 2005
Page 2
V. INFORMATIONAL MEETING
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. EDEN PRAIRIE TECH CENTER by Mount Properties. The location is
Flying Cloud Drive and Shady Oak Road. The request is for a Planned Unit
Development Concept Review on 16.474 acres; a Planned Unit Development
District Review on 5.01 acres; a Zoning District Change Amendment in the I-5
Zoning District on 5.01 acres; a Preliminary Plat of 16.474 acres into one lot and
one outlot; a Site Plan Review of 16.474 acres.
Steve Michals presented this proposal utilizing the overheard projector. He stated
that the site is fronted on Flying Cloud Drive and they are working with United
Properties to subdivide the site in the westerly 5 acres. The eastern portion would
be approximately 10 1/2 acres and that site would remain as an outlot. The existing
building on the property is approximately 200,000 sq. ft. The westerly portion of
the building would remain and the remainder of the building would be
demolished. Michals pointed out that the westerly site is a fairly flat parcel of
land. He stated that there is one curb cut on the westerly side, and they would be
providing a new curb cut on the east side of the new parcel. There would also be
94 hard surface parking stalls installed. He pointed out where the parking would
exist around the building. Michals stated that in regards to the landscaping plan,
they will be removing a number of old ash trees which would allow more parking
closer to the front door and along the east side of the building. There would be a
number of large oak trees on the northwest side of the site that will remain
untouched. New trees would be added to the east side of the building and shrubs
would be placed around the base of the building. The total number of tree loss
would be approximately 21; but they would be replaced by 65 new trees, 96
shrubs, and 243 perennials. Michals requested that the Planning Commission
review the substitution to the landscape plan. Michals pointed out that currently
the trees are 40 feet on center and felt that if they were to add the caliber inches
required in the staff report, they would run out of room on the site. They would
like to substitute the value of the shrubs and perennials to create a balance plan as
a substitute for the value of a three inch tree. He also stated that their package
does include a site plan purposed by United Properties; which would be the 10
acres of property to the east. This is an overall plan of approximately 95,000 feet
of single level office space. This would be the neighboring property. There is a
slight grade elevation change of approximately 5 feet. Michals stated that they
would be open to a common or shared access between the two properties in the
future as their site plan evolves.
Stoelting asked Franzen to review the staff report. Franzen made some
clarifications stating that under Request on page 1, the City identified the site plan
review on the total project area, which is 16 acres,but the site plan review should
only be on the 5.1 acre parcel. The other clarification was on page 3, under Staff
Recommendation, number 2, where it states they have to submit a detailed storm
Planning Commission Minutes
September 12, 2005
Page 3
water run-off plan. That would only be for the 5 acre lot, not for the remaining 10
acres. The staff recommendation is for approval. Franzen stated that they need to
work on a few issues prior to Council. The first issue is about including
additional caliber inches of trees on the property, with the landscaping
requirement as an additive requirement. The City's landscaping requirements and
tree replacing requirements only talk about the size of trees and mass of trees and
not a landscape design. Franzen stated that if the City wants to encourage a better
design, the 161 inches could be part larger trees,part additional trees and part
caliper inch trade for perennials. The second issue would be the rooftop
mechanical equipment screen plan. Franzen pointed out that there are 3-4
existing units near the front of the building that would need screening and any
additional new units that would be added to the building.
Fox commented on tree spacing stating that the way the City looks at trees with
landscaping is that the character of the landscaping determines the overall
appearance of the building from the exterior. He stated that in spacing trees at the
parks they are 25-30 feet apart. If they are any further they will not blend
themselves together. Fox stated that the character of the site is determined not
only by the spacing but also the species. He pointed out that one of the issues that
the City looks at with sites is screening and that increasing the size of the trees
would certainly put things closer together and make up the difference.
Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input.
George Burkhardt of United Properties, representing the owner of the property,
addressed the matter of the report that was handed out by the Staff that included
Engineering and Planning Department input. He stated that the only issue they
have with this property is that after they make the sale of the property to the
development company they will retain 10 acres of this parcel of land and they
want to make sure it will contain 2 access points. Currently the 16 plus acres
have three access points. He stated that with approximately 100,000 sq. ft. of
single story office space with multi-tenant use, the tenants are going to require
circulation with that particular property; which would mean two access points.
Mr. Burkhardt stated that that is the only objection that they have in terms of what
is recommended in the report. He pointed out that one of the possible solutions
would be to work with Staff on a combined access at the westerly point. As far as
the easterly point, the advantage would be lining it up with the business that is
located directly north of the property. They would have an access point that could
be lined up to provide direct access versus an offset. He asked that these two
access points be retained at this time.
Stoelting asked Mr. Burkhardt if he had any problems with the required
landscaping requirements of the additional 161 inches of significant trees. Mr.
Burkhardt stated he does not have a problem with the landscaping requirements.
Stoelting also asked Mr. Burkhardt if he had any issues with the screening of the
future mechanical equipment at the front end of the building. Mr. Burkhardt
Planning Commission Minutes
September 12, 2005
Page 4
stated that this is not his concern but did say that what is required of one should
be required of all, and if it is not required of all then it is not a fair request.
Stoelting asked Mr. Burkhardt to explain the access points using the overheard
projector. Gray pointed out that a diagram was included in the packet. Gray
stated that there are three access points and that none of them coordinate with any
of the other access points on Flying Cloud Drive.
Gray stated that what the City is dealing with is the redevelopment of the area and
the growing traffic volume. One of the alternatives the City is contemplating is
making Flying Cloud Drive a three lane design. Gray stated that this process
could be very difficult to make it effective if there are driveways across from each
other that are offset by short distances rather than aligned with each other or
spaced adequately apart. He stated that to apply a three lane design to this site in
the future, the City would be looking at eliminating some access points and line
some access points up, and that needs to be made part of the project. Gray stated
that another alternative would be if we retain three access points for the overall
site in the long run, then this westerly access should not be moved as far to the
east as it is being moved. The preference would be to move it farther west, but
then there would be a conflict with the landscape. Gray stated that we should be
looking at working at this side of the development to try to reduce three access
points down to two and line those up with some that exists on the north side. It
could be done with this plan but would require good strong cross access
configuration.
Stoelting asked Gray what was being voted on this evening. He questioned if it
was the 5-acre lot and stated that Gray adequately talked about reducing three
access points down to two,but pointed out that the two access points under
question are associated with the 10-acre lot and not the 5-acre lot. Stoelting stated
that he understood that there needed to be a cross access between the 5-acre and
10-acre lot in order to make the 2 access points work for both parcels of land.
Stoelting asked Gray if he was satisfied with the access drive for the 5-acre lot.
Gray stated that it is workable but what should be looked at is the parking lot
layout and it should be planned for a shared driveway location for the future in
order to accomplish some access reduction. Stoelting asked where that shared
access would be between both lots. Gray stated that where it is right now would
be the ideal location but stated that in the future there needs to be more of a
driveway that comes from each site and parallels Flying Cloud Drive and then this
driveway would need to come in at centralized location so that both sites could
access that.
Mr. Burkhardt stated that in regards to a shared access, in looking at the total
development from Shady Oak to the property before it turns south, there are
almost 20 access points on both sides, not including access from cross roads. He
used the overhead projector to point this out. He stated that there are a lot of
access points and tenants are going to need access to their businesses. In regards
Planning Commission Minutes
September 12, 2005
Page 5
to what Gray said, they are willing to work with the developer to get the access
situation resolved.
Mr. Burkhardt stated that they are contributing to the project by reducing the
access points from three to two. He also stated that the only suggestion they have
for the Commission is that they will give the one access point to the development
company with the idea that there will be a shared access now or in the future, and
they will cover the balance at another time. Stoelting felt that was a sound
approach.
Koenig asked Fox that if extra trees are put in, could the proponent be asked to
use more variety; to put some oak trees in since there are existing oak trees on the
property. Fox responded by stating that they do recommend diversity in the trees
and would suggest two species of trees are acceptable but they certainly could go
with three or four.
Koenig asked Mr. Michals how he felt about adding more diversity to the tree
species. Mr. Michals stated that they are comfortable with the diversity and
would be working with Fox to get trees that are good and hardy in this area.
Koenig asked if adding more oak trees could be a possibility. Mr. Michals stated
that of all the tree species, the oaks have the least amount of success in Eden
Prairie. Fox added that because of irrigation the trees tend to get over watered
and oak trees are dry soiled trees.
Sutherland asked Mr. Michals if he was amiable to the shared access that they
have been talking about and asked if that would work with their plans or do they
have an issue with it. Mr. Michals stated that he is comfortable with the plan.
MOTION by Sutherland, seconded by Kirk, to close the public hearing. Motion
carried 6-0.
MOTION by Sutherland, seconded by Kirk, to approve the Planned Unit
Development concept Review on 16.47 acres; Planned Unit Development District
Review on 5.01 acres; Zoning District Change Amendment in the I-5 Zoning
District on 5.01 acres; Site Plan Review on 5.01 acres; and Preliminary Plat of
16.47 acres into one lot and one outlot based on plans stamped dated September 8,
2005, subject to the recommendations of the staff report dated September 9, 2005.
Motion carried 6-0.
B. EDEN BLUFF CORPORATE CENTER I by United Properties. The location
of this property is Charlson Road and Hwy 212. The request is for a Planned Unit
Development Concept Review on 36.8 acres; Planned Unit Development District
Review on 18.47 acres; Zoning District Change from Rural to Office on 18.47
acres; Preliminary Plat of 36.8 acres into 1 lot and 2 outlots; a Site Plan Review of
18.47 acres.
Planning Commission Minutes
September 12, 2005
Page 6
Bill Kater, of United Properties, introduced Ed Farr, of Ed Farr Architects. Mr.
Farr presented the proposal. He stated he wanted to present the key points of the
project. He stated that they have gone through a concept plan review a few
months ago. They have a total of a little less than 50 acres for commercial office,
office industrial and retail uses and there is 10 acres on the east side and 36 acres
on the west side that is currently being constructed. Farther west is the existing
Hennepin Village residential subdivision. There is a plan to design a buffer zone
for regional ponding between the residential area and the commercial industrial
area. The first project is Eden Bluff Corporate Center project. It is a single story
150,000 sq. foot project along the bluff. C.H. Robinson Worldwide will be the
tenant. Because of the restrictions for curb cuts along Charlson Road as it
proceeds into the development from Hwy 212, Mr. Farr said that they have
aligned the entrance up at the point where there is a curb cut which goes east
toward the retail area so that there are turning alignments across the way to their
office development. He pointed out that they will be sharing this curb cut with
the next building further to the north when that project gets completed in the
future. Mr. Farr stated that in working with Staff they have come up with a better
plan for building locations. That plan would represent a minor shift in the
building location. One of the shifts is a shift to the east, farther away from the
residential area so that more of a flat bench could be created between the parking
lot and the slope down to the pond. He pointed out that they've going into the 35
foot setback because of the pie shape angularity of Charlson Road,however, it
would be for just a little bit then it would be back to 35 feet. Staff felt that was a
betterment for the project. The project was also moved a bit south towards Hwy
212 to improve the walkability of the new trail that was installed between the
residential area of Hennepin Village over to the retail. There will also be a fence
put up along the trail. Mr. Farr stated they would also be in compliance with the
landscaping plan. He stated that there would be significant plantings along the
building and there would be a 3 foot gate in the fence so people could walk out
and enjoy the trail. Mr. Farr stated that they will be bringing all the utilities in
and the storm water system is predesigned to meet the water qualities. He also
pointed out that the sign they are requesting is slightly larger than what is
required. He stated the reason the sign is larger is because it is a shared sign
placed at the entry point of the properties. They felt this was a much better idea to
have a larger sign than two smaller signs because it would be less distracting. In
regards to the overall site, the office warehouse development has some concerns
about the loading dock views as to what is now going to be zoned residential. Mr.
Farr stated that they do not have use for the property now and they have two
alternative plans on how to mitigate the loading dock view.
Stoelting made the comment that the site would come forward in front of the
Commission at some future point. Mr. Farr confirmed it would.
Stoltz asked Mr. Farr, in regards to the multi-tenant situation, where the natural
divides were in the building. Mr. Farr stated that the building has the potential for
numerous divides. He stated that the there are windows around the whole
Planning Commission Minutes
September 12, 2005
Page 7
building and at any given time they could be popped out and a door could be
installed. Stoltz asked if it was a single tenant building, would the main door be
in the center and Mr. Farr confirmed that it would.
Stoelting asked Franzen to review the staff report. Franzen stated that Staff
recommendation is for approval but that there are some minor items under review
by the City Council for revision. Franzen stated that the first item would be that
of the sign plan, would need to be smaller. The second item is the future
development. Franzen stated the loading area needs to be screened from adjacent
residents as the industrial site should be reversed to remove the center driveway
and replace with a berm. Franzen also brought up one more item on this project
and that would have to do with the parking setback. It was the Staff
recommendation to have them provide more horizontal area on the west side of
the project so as to keep more of the vegetation up higher to soften the view of the
large office building from the future townhouses and single family homes.
Stoelting asked where the waiver was. Mr. Farr pointed it out stating it was 17 1/2
feet at the minimum. He showed the slope and the 15-20 foot flat stop for
plantings used for screening between the residential area. He also stated there
will be a full length screen wall around the building and stated that the
landscaping plan was included in the packet
Stoelting opened up the meeting for public input. There was no input.
Sutherland asked Mr. Farr if there was a typing error on sheet C1; it showed the
FFE at 859 but pointed out that the elevation showed the FFE at 959. Mr. Farr
stated it should be 859.
Koenig thanked Mr. Farr for the addition of the fence to the property, so as to give
people more of a definition of where the property ends.
MOTION by Stoltz, seconded by Kirk, to close the public hearing. Motion
carried 6-0.
MOTION by Stoltz, seconded by Koenig, to approve the Planned Unit
Development Concept Review on 36.8 acres; Planned Unit Development District
Review on 183.47 acres; Zoning District Change from Rural to Office on 18.47
acres; Site Plan Review of 18.47 acres; and Preliminary Plat of 36.8 acres into one
lot and two outlots,based on plans stamped dated September 8, 2005, subject to
the recommendations of the staff report dated September 9, 2005. Motion
carried 6-0.
VII. MEMBERS' REPORTS
Koenig asked if the MCA study on September 27 was a public hearing. Franzen stated it
was an open house. Koenig asked if the open house was going to cover what the
Planning Commission Minutes
September 12, 2005
Page 8
Commission looked at in their joint meetings with the City Council and Franzen
confirmed it would. Koenig asked if they were looking for public comment. Franzen
stated they were. Kirk asked what the next step would be after that for MCA. Franzen
stated that they would come back to the Planning Commission for an advisory
recommendation and then go on to the City Council for their acceptance.
VIII. CONTINUING BUSINESS
IX. NEW BUSINESS
X. PLANNERS' REPORTS
Franzen stated that there would be three items on the agenda for the September 26
meeting. The first item would be an addition to add more bedrooms to a home on a lot at
McCall Bluff. The second item would be for a pool variance. The third item is for a sign
variance for an industrial building up in Crosstown Industrial Park.
Stoelting asked Franzen about the e-mails that were in the packet regarding Stellant.
Franzen stated that the City is doing an analysis of sign codes from other communities He
stated that they are working with Stellant on a revised sign plan based on trading signs
from one wall to another.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Koenig, seconded by Seymour, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried
6-0.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:33 p.m.