Loading...
Planning Commission - 07/12/2004 APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE COMMUNITY PLANNING BOARD MONDAY,JULY 12, 2004 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road BOARD MEMBERS: Larry Kacher, Kathy Nelson, Fred Seymour, Jon Stoltz, Ray Stoelting, Ken Brooks, Vicki Koenig, Peter Rocheford, William Sutherland STAFF MEMBERS: Michael Franzen, City Planner Alan Gray, City Engineer Stu Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources Kathy Fischer, Recording Secretary I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—ROLL CALL Chair Stoelting called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Kathy Nelson, Fred Seymour, Ray Stoelting, Jon Stoltz, Peter Rocheford. Absent: Larry Kacher, Vicki Koenig, William Sutherland, Ken Brooks. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION by Seymour, seconded by Nelson to approve the agenda. Motion carried 5-0. III. MINUTES A. COMMUNITY PLANNING BOARD MEETING HELD JUNE 28, 2004 MOTION by Seymour, seconded by Nelson to approve the minutes as written. Motion carried 5-0. IV. PUBLIC MEETING V. PUBLIC HEARING A. HILLTOP TOWN OFFICES by Arima, L.L.C. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review 6.89 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 6.89 acres, Zoning District Amendment within the Office Zoning District on 6.89 acres, Site Plan Review on 6.89 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 6.89 acres into 16 lots. Location: 7480 Flying Cloud Drive. Peter Hilger, Portfolio Design Services, said there were representatives from Arima, the civil engineer, and architect working on the project present to answer any questions. Community Planning Board July 12, 2004 Page 2 Hilger indicated that they would like to have discussions on a couple of issues in the staff report. Hilger said they are willing to dedicate right-of-way, but the City has asked them to revise the grading plan to show the areas of right-of-way graded to elevations similar to the adjacent existing back of curb elevations with boulevards at a 3% slope for future roadway improvements. Hilger does not agree with the request to grade the right-of-way. Hilger commented that the original PUD was approximately 20,000 square feet, and Arima is proposing approximately 37,000 square feet, but the units are quite different, because they are for sale and are not leased. The units will be mortgaged. Even though there is a much higher square footage, there will be a very low density of use. The units are different than other office units, there are walkout basements and only one side of the building has a window. Even though there would be 37,000 square feet, the occupancies in this type of development might be anywhere from 45 to 90 occupants. When you divide that square footage per occupant, there is one occupant per 300 square feet. The building code requires that you calculate exiting on the basis of one occupant per 100 square feet. The Wilson would probably be one per 150-225 square feet per occupant. Even though there is higher square footage, this development would generate much less traffic on this type of development than a comparable development that might have been considered. Hilger commented that the necessity to trigger roadway improvements at this time for this development does not seem warranted. The requirement to provide grading in the right-of-way does not seem correct at this time. If at any time, the right-of-way would need to be developed, Arima would pay assessments for their cost of the grading. Hilger commenting on the staff report to revise the architectural elevations to provide a minimum of 75% face brick, glass, and natural stone, with all three buildings combined this development meets this requirement. Hilger said that there is a considerable amount of frontage on the building, and there is a one-story building that does not have as much frontage. Hilger said that the exterior elevations, which are typical for the development, have an established roofline, below which everything is brick, masonry and glass, above which the principle dormers are shown to be stucco along with the lesser dormers. This pattern is carried all the way across the building. With the single buildings, they follow the same pattern of the dormers. Because this the buildings have less wall area, the development does not quite fit the 75% on this building, which is 57%. Hilger said that a waiver on that issue is requested, because they can meet 75% of all three buildings combined. Several buildings are at 87% and some are at 57%, but when you average the amount of brick, masonry and glass on all the buildings, they meet the requirement. Hilger urged the Board to move the process forward and would rather not have it continued. Franzen indicated that on page 3 of the staff report there were four waivers. Franzen said that the City is under no obligation to grant waivers, but without these waivers there would not be a development. Franzen commented that since he has been with the City, it has been the City's policy to have the developer pay their own way. Since the developer is asking for an additional 17,000 square feet, the City thinks that they are treating the developer fairly. Franzen said that the Community Planning Board July 12, 2004 Page 3 City is okay with the waivers, but they are not sure about the waiver of building materials, but may need to look at different elevations. Franzen indicated that the Board needs to look at whether to grant the waivers, is the right-of-way grading reasonable, and should the developer adhere to the 75% building material requirement. Gray said four years ago most of the office buildings were occupied, which is currently not been the case. However, as the economy picks up, more offices will again be occupied and additional traffic will become an issue. Gray explained that office developments should contribute to the roads since the traffic will increase. Gray said that if the right-of-way was graded after the development was in place, landscaping would be disturbed. There are a lot of advantages of doing the grading at this time. The City is trying to represent the interests of future tenants. Gray explained that the City is asking that the right-of-way be graded at this time, because it would be more cost effective. The purpose of grading the right-of-way is the future expansion of the roadways which is inevitable. The City expects future traffic to be greater; the intersections will need signals, etc. to function properly. Rocheford asked if it fair to request the developer to grade the right-of-way when the improvements benefit everyone. Rocheford asked what it would cost to grade the right-of-way Mike Manning, Arima Engineer, said it would cost approximately $130,000. Rocheford thought that the cost should be borne by all benefiting property owners including Valley Road. Gray indicated that the City has made similar agreements with other developers and the issues were able to be resolved. Additional grading is not irresponsible to ask for this type of Guide Plan change. Gray reiterated that it would be much more difficult to grade later, than to do it now. Gray said that since the City is allowing an increase in office square footage, it is fair to request the developer to grade the right-of-way. Nelson said that if the project were built without a zoning change, the project would be one-half the size. Since the project is on a bluff, there will be steep slopes with retaining walls, it would be advisable to do the grading at this time and have it done right. Nelson supported the idea of grading the right-of-way at this time. The Board members agreed that the grading of the right-of-way should be done now rather than in the future. Rocheford had no comment on the issue. Community Planning Board July 12, 2004 Page 4 Nelson and Stoelting preferred that the development met the 75% on the building materials. The other Board members indicated that they had no objection to the applicant's proposal for building materials. The Board members supported the four waivers as listed in the staff report. Stoelting asked Hilger if they were agreeable to continuing the public hearing. Hilger said that they were not objectionable to continuing the public hearing. Soelting asked Hilger to bring a representation of the proposed building materials to the next meeting. Hilger agreed. MOTION by Seymour, seconded by Nelson to continue the public hearing of Hilltop Town Offices to August 9, 2004. Motion carried 5-0. B. AMENDMENT TO FLOOD PLAIN REGULATIONS SECTION 11.45 An amendment to the City Code regarding Floodplain Regulations. The proposed amendment includes additional definitions, floodplain standards, and criteria for granting variances. Franzen said that FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) is requiring all cities to adopt new flood plain maps and modifications to existing flood plain regulations. The new regulations and the existing regulations are similar. The new ordinance includes the following: new or amending definitions, clarification of reasons for granting variances and non-conformities, notification requires to the DNR and FEMA and adopting, by reference, new flood plain maps. Staff is recommending approval of revisions to Section 11.45 Flood Plain Regulations. MOTION by Rocheford, seconded by Nelson to approve the amendment to the Flood Plain Regulations Section 11.45. Motion carried 5-0. VII. MEMBERS' REPORTS VIII. CONTINUING BUSINESS IX. NEW BUSINESS X. PLANNERS' REPORTS XI. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Seymour, seconded by Nelson to adjourn the Planning Board meeting of July 12, 2004 at 8:13 p.m. Motion carried 5-0.