Planning Commission - 06/09/2003 APPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE COMMUNITY PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY,JUNE 9, 2003 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER
Council Chambers
8080 Mitchell Road
BOARD MEMBERS: Ken Brooks, Randy Foote,
Vicki Koenig, Fred Seymour, Kathy Nelson,
Dave Steppat, Ray Stoelting, Paul Sodt, Bill
Sutherland
STAFF MEMBERS: Stu Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources
Mike Franzen, City Planner
Al Gray, City Engineer
Jane Hovind, Recording Secretary
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—ROLL CALL
Chair Stoelting called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Chair Stoelting,
Commissioners Brooks, Foote, Seymour, Sodt, Steppat, and Sutherland.
Absent: Koenig and Nelson
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION by Steppat, second by Sodt, to approve the agenda. Motion carried, 7-0.
III. MINUTES
A. Minutes of the May 12, 2003 Community Planning Board Meeting
Steppat stated that on page 10, second paragraph he voted nay on the first vote and
aye on the second vote. Seymour stated he voted aye on both votes.
MOTION by Steppat, second by Sodt, to approve the minutes of the May 12, 2003
Community Planning Board Meeting. Motion carried, 7-0.
IV. PUBLIC MEETINGS
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. EMERSON PROCESS MANAGEMENT ADDITION by Rosemount Inc.
Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 58.89 acres, Planned
Unit Development District Review on 58.89 acres, Rezoning from Rural to I-5 on
Planning Board Minutes
June 9, 2003
Page 2
9.2 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 58.89 acres into 2 lots. Location 12001
Technology Drive.
Evan Rice presented the project. He stated the site is composed of 7 lots zoned I-5
and 9 acres zoned Rural. He said there are two buildings on the property, one is
158,367 s.f. and the other is 116,995 s.f. Rosemount Inc., plans to consolidate its
operations into the larger of the two buildings. They are considering changing the
use of the second building. He said they plan to donate the other building to the
Emerson Charitable Trust for its eventual sale. He stated the request is for rezoning
of the 9 acres to the west to be consistent with the Guide Plan. There is an
agreement between Costco and Emerson Charitable Trust which is contingent on
the subdivision approval. If Costco doesn't purchase the property, Rosemount will
eventually sell the property. There is a plan to continue the bituminous sidewalk
west across the property. Rosemount has agreed to a conservation easement over
the lake and a trail easement.
Rosemount is not in agreement with the proposed roadway easement. It would run
80 x 164 feet through an existing transmission easement. Rosemount has
reservations as to providing the easement including:
1) Location corresponds with existing primary driveway. Would have to
reconfigure how to enter and exit the building and property.
2) Don't see the roadway as being imminent. None of the MnDot guide documents
show anything happening in the next 5 - 10 years.
3) Rosemount has agreed to the trailway and conservation easements and the
bituminous trailway.
Franzen stated the City and MnDot have been studying options for a full access
with I-494 at TH 212/Flying Cloud Drive. All issues considered, the most feasible
option calls for closing the east end of Technology Drive at TH 212. In order to
provide dependable, two-way access to existing and future businesses in the area, it
is critical to plan for a connection between Technology Drive and Single Tree Lane.
This area is already encumbered by a powerline. The staff is open to other locations
for the road easement.
Franzen stated one of the questions is when would the road be built. If Rosemount
decided to subdivide, change zoning or do a guide plan change, etc.; that would be
one of the triggers to build the roadway. Rosemount is asking for a 50 foot setback
waiver. Staff would support a 100 foot setback from Idlewild Lake, subject toa
conservation easement. This would protect vegetation and trees. Staff would also
support an impervious surface waiver to 70%. Staff is recommending approval
according to the recommendations on page four of the staff report.
Planning Board Minutes
June 9, 2003
Page 3
Al Gray, City Engineer, showed an aerial photo of the site and described the
location of the roadway. Gray stated that if there is a guide plan change and
Costco locates there, it will create additional traffic. This interchange would be
very convenient for the whole commercial area and since Costco is a regional
business it will pull customers from a larger geographic area. Traffic will be using
Technology Drive which is already congested. He said transportation fits well with
the transmission easement which could include a parking lot or a roadway. The
corridor lines up well with Technology Drive and Single Tree Lane. He stated that
when a corridor is planned and is taken as an easement, this differs from taking it as
a road right-of-way.
Foote asked if there was any other way to place a roadway through the property.
Gray responded that because of changes in grade, certain areas would be very
difficult to utilize for a roadway.
Steppat asked about the property to the southof the corridor not owned by Emerson
Process. He asked what would need to be done to get the road through that
property. Gray responded, it would include acquisition of the corridor which would
impact parking areas for the businesses. This would include some type of
mitigation for them.
Brooks asked whether this would impact any other property in the area. Gray
responded the bowling alley and a Watertower apartments.
Sutherland asked if the reconfiguration of the I-494/212 interchange is necessary for
the closing of Technology Drive and the connection of Technology to Single Tree
Lane. Gray responded there are several alternatives but this one is the preferred
one. It's necessary to establish the easement and define the triggers. This is not
something that will be done immediately. The money isn't available in the next
year or so. There are more projects that need to be done with the major center fund
than can be done with the funds available.
Robert Emhoff of 8704 Greer Lane, President of American Baptist Homes of the
Midwest, stated that his business is located contiguous to Technology Drive. He
said he is concerned about the density of development in the area such as Lincoln
Pare and the Watertower projects. Because of these dense developments, there is
not a lot of green space remaining in this area of the city. He said further
development of the area would have a profound impact because most of his
employees use Flying Cloud Drive. He said he is concerned about the effects
Costco would have if they built in the area and he doesn't believe they are needed in
Eden Prairie. He stated the traffic on Technology Drive would be significantly
increased and the traffic light system at the intersection of Technology Drive and
Flying Cloud Drive is not set up for this kind of traffic. The area needs to be
maintained as it is with the current conservation easement and 200 foot setback.
Planning Board Minutes
June 9, 2003
Page 4
Evan Rice stated they want to keep the discussion as it related to Rosemount, not to
Costco. He said while Emerson Process is not against the corridor, Rosemount
wants to continue their current use of the property. The concern is that they be
assured there are appropriate triggers in place so that only when the I-494/212
interchange is upgraded and Technology Drive is closed will the roadway be built.
Rosemount would like to use their land the way they see fit, including the green
space.
Sutherland stated that in reference to Rosemount wanting to keep the current
driveway as opposed to a roadway, it would seem to be a minor adjustment for
those entering the site. Mr. Rice responded that the roadway will cut off access to
the entire northwest part of the property where there are walking paths, picnic areas
with a picnic pavilion and tennis courts utilized by employees. At a minimum,
Rosemount would need to reconfigure the use of the building to allow for traffic
circulation.
Steppat stated he believes in the vision of a downtown Eden Prairie which involves
redevelopment. He said there is no good access to I-494 from that area of the city.
He said the City needs to look at the future and plan for it. This option will do that
by having the easement in place.
Sodt asked about the reference in the letter for the springing easement which is
triggered by an event. He asked if there is a legal basis for this type of easement.
Mr. Rice responded the use of the easement rights are contingent on a prerequisite
event which would occur first. In this case, it would be the upgrading of I-494/212
and the closing of Technology Drive. Sodt asked if this then would be legal and
binding. Mr. Rice responded it would.
Sodt stated the 10 foot waiver parking lot setbacks should not be given up. He
asked if a temporary waiver would be granted and binding. The City should have
the right to enforce the waiver in the future. Franzen responded it would be unique
to Rosemount's use of the property. The waiver is based on the current use and a
new owner would not get the benefit of that.
Seymour asked if an easement isn't granted and Emerson was purchased or merged,
could the City not come back and get the easement until the new owners did
something with the property. Franzen responded that the City can by statute only
require a dedication of right-of-way as part of an approval of a subdivision of land.
Although this would be our preferred method of providing for a future road, there
appears to be a mutual advantage to a road easement. With a road easement, the
land within the easement can be included to determine the allowable building
square footage. Land within road right-of-way cannot be used to calculate allowable
building square footage. The easement area would cover approximately 2 acres.
MOTION by Steppat, second by Foote to close the public hearing.
Planning Board Minutes
June 9, 2003
Page 5
MOTION by Steppat. second by Foote to approve the Planned Unit Development
Concept Review on 58.89 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on
58.89 acres, Rezoning from Rural to I-5 on 9.2 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 58.89
acres into 2 lots, based on plans dated April 18, 2003, subject to the
recommendations of the staff report dated June 6, 2003. Motion carried, 7-0.
Franzen suggested the Board make a separate motion that includes triggers for the
roadway. Also, whether the City would consider a shoreland setback of 100 feet
and impervious surface of 70% for Lot 2. This waiver would be similar to those
granted for other projects in the area.
Brooks asked if staff had discussed triggers with Rosemount. Franzen responded
yes.
Foote asked about triggers and the fact that Rosemount controls them. He asked if
a minor building expansion would be a trigger. Franzen responded no, but a large
expansion would require a site plan review before the Board and Council again.
Gray added the triggers are not for the easement but construction of the roadway.
He said it would be extremely unlikely if they expanded that it would trigger the
roadway.
Stoelting asked for input from Board members as to sending a message to the City
Council on the waiver and easement.
Sutherland stated that a motion to reconsider can be to change the original motion
or call for a revote, it just brings it up again.
MOTION by Sodt, second by Sutherland, to reconsider the motion.
The Board voted to reconsider the motion:
Vote: Brookes, Foote, Sodt, Sutherland and Stoelting voted aye. Seymour and
Steppat voted nay. Motion carried, 5-2.
MOTION by Sodt, second by Foote, to approve the Planned Unit Development
Concept Review on 58.89 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on
58.89 acres, Rezoning from Rural to I-5 on 9.2 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 58.89
acres into 2 lots, based on plans dated April 18, 2003, subject to the
recommendations of the staff report dated June 6, 2003; Staff and Council will
negotiate an easement which would allow for roadway construction when one of the
following occurs: subdivision, rezoning, guide plan change, or building expansion
on Lot 2 or construction of a full access with I-494/212 and the closing of
Technology Drive; and granting a waiver to allow a setback of 100 feet from Lake
Idlewilde and an increase in the impervious surface from 35% to 70%.
Planning Board Minutes
June 9, 2003
Page 6
MOTION by Sutherland, second by Foote, to amend the motion to include deleting
requirement 1C on page 4 of the staff report regarding the 10 foot setback to
parking. Motion carried, 7-0.
B. SOUTHWEST STATION SIGN by Southwest Metro. Request for Planned Unit
Development Concept Amendment on 21.84 acres, Planned Unit Development
District Amendment with waivers on 21.84 acres, and Zoning District Amendment
in the Commercial Regional Service Zoning District on 12.95 acres. Location:
North of Technology Drive, south of T.H. 312 and west of Prairie Center Drive.
Bob Worthington of Southwest Metro presented the project. He stated that the
banners have a significant place in the development of the Southwest Station. They
will add to the special element of the development. Banners provide advertising for
the Southwest station. He indicated where the banners would be located on the site
plan. He said Southwest Station has less than the amount of sign footage allowed
and, consequently, is asking for the banners.
Franzen stated staff is recommending approval of the project with waivers from two
free standing signs at 116 square feet and wall signs at 1,528 square feet to 80
banners at 1,000 square feet.
Brooks asked why they were requesting so many banners and the materials they
would be made of. Worthington responded they will not be that intrusive to people
driving through the development and the banners will be either fabric or vinyl,
depending on what would be most durable. He said the banners will not be lit and
would be changed out for special occasions such as holidays.
Brooks stated he had a number of comments regarding the banners. 1) Can the
Board require the type of materials used; 2) Is this the package for the entire site;
3) 80 banners seems to add to the busyness of the development. Franzen responded
the Board can recommend materials and colors since Southwest Station is asking
for a waiver. He said the banners need to be well thought out with an attractive
design, appropriate in scale. It might be possible to reduce the number. The City's
sign ordinance allows 80 square feet of pylon sign and 110.square feet of free-
standing signs; wall signs can't exceed 300 square feet. Each development
including each of the retail businesses on the transit site can have signs both wall
and freestanding as long as the square footage meets the code. He said 80 banners
didn't seem excessive, the size was appropriate and they promote transit.
Brooks asked if Pickled Parrot have the same sign codes as Culvers. Franzen
responded yes. Culvers and Krispy Kreme have 36 square foot monument signs.
Sodt stated there is a statement in the report regarding advertising. Franzen said the
Board is approving a specific design and logo. Sodt said he didn't want to see
advertising on the banners for businesses at the transit site and he asked how that
Planning Board Minutes
June 9, 2003
Page 7
could be prevented. Franzen said they would need to add that language to the staff
recommendations.
Seymour asked the life expectancy of materials and how often they would need to
replace the banners. Worthington responded that they can't speculate longer than a
year. They would replace them as needed as long as they had reserves to replace
them. If they could no longer feasibly keep replacing them, they would take them
down. Seymour asked if they used up the signs at some point whether some might
have banners and some won't. Worthington responded that they would take them
all down if money wasn't available to keep them. They plan on keeping them a
minimum of 5 years.
Foote asked staff if the City has authority to require removing the signs if they
become tattered. Franzen responded that this could be included in the development
agreement.
Worthington stated that this is the home base for Southwest Station and they are
there for the long term. They take pride in their site and will for a long time to
come.
Steppat stated that last fall he spent some time in Evanston, Illinois. He said they
have a nice downtown with banners on light poles that looked really good.
Seymour asked Franzen whether they could change the design on the banners and
whether they would have to come back before the City Council. Franzen responded
if they vary from the approved plan they would need to come back with a new sign
plan.
Sutherland said he also visited Evanston and came to the same conclusion as
Steppat.
Stoelting asked whether there should be directional signs in and around the site He
questioned whether they were needed for traffic flow similar to the Eden Prairie
Mall. Franzen stated staff didn't require directional signs for the Southwest Station
because the restaurants are very visible and it's a smaller development. The Eden
Prairie mall did a traffic report which indicated the need for directional signs which
would help improve the flow of traffic.
Stoelting asked if it was something they could address later. Franzen said this is
what is normally done after the businesses are open and the observed traffic flow
will determine if and where directional signs should be located.
Brooks said he's not against the idea, just the number of banners. He said it may
become too busy looking.
Planning Board Minutes
June 9, 2003
Page 8
Seymour stated that he is not overly excited about the banners. He thought it would
look great if they were changed out seasonally. He said it lends to a festivity. He
wondered if the black color will turn to gray over time. He wouldn't be likely to
vote for them.
MOTION by Sodt, second by Sutherland, to close the public hearing.
MOTION by Sodt, second by Steppat to approve the sign package and amend the
development agreement to prohibit advertising on the banners for any other reason
than the logos submitted.
Vote: Foote, Sodt, Sutherland, Stoelting and Steppat voted aye. Brooks and
Seymour voted nay. Motion carried, 5-2.
VI. MEMBERS REPORTS
VII. CONTINUING BUSINESS
VIII. NEW BUSINESS
IX. PLANNERS'REPORTS
X. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Foote, second by Steppat to adjourn. Motion carried, 7-0.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.