Loading...
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.