Loading...
Planning Commission - 04/23/2001 APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE COMMUNITY PLANNING BOARD MONDAY,APRIL 23, 2001 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road BOARD MEMBERS: Chair Frantz Corneille, Ken Brooks, Randy Foote, Vicki Koenig, Kathy Nelson, Fred Seymour, Paul Sodt, Susan Stock, Ray Stoelting STAFF MEMBERS: Krista Flemming, Planner II Stu Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources Alan Gray, City Engineer Scott Kipp, Senior Planner Leslie Stovring, Environmental Coordinator Donald Uram, Community Development/ Financial Services Director I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—ROLL CALL Vice-Chair Stoelting called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Commissioners Foote, Koenig, Nelson, Seymour, Sodt, Stoelting. Absent: Brooks, Corneille, Stock. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Motion by Koenig, second by Sodt to approve the Monday, April 23 Community Planning Board Agenda. Motion carried 6-0. III. MINUTES A. April 9, 2001 Koenig requested the following changes to the minutes: Page 6, sixth paragraph to the bottom should read, Koenig asked Franzen to explain density transfer to the audience as it relates to the specific site. Page 7, seventh paragraph from the bottom, should read, Koenig asked about tree impacts and if there would be less tree loss at a lower density. Page 9, last sentence, should read, Koenig questioned whether the density on C was similar to any existing developments, specifically Pine Brook. Page 11, tenth paragraph from the bottom, should read, Koenig expressed that she was okay with the guide plan change. She inquired about land farther west on County Road 1 and zoning across from the airport. Community Planning Board Minutes April 23, 2001 Page 2 Page 11, eighth paragraph from the bottom, should read, Koenig asked how this development would affect development of property farther west. Page 12, top paragraph, should read, Koenig questioned tree loss of 49%; it is high, but she is happy to see wetland trees. Motion by Nelson, second by Koenig to approve the April 9, 2001 minutes as amended. Motion carried, 4-1-0, abstention Foote. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. VALLEY VIEW CORPORATE CENTER by CSM Equities, L.L.C. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Medium Density Residential to Office on 2.39 acres and from Regional Commercial to Office on 4.79 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 7.18 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 7.18 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 on 7.18 acres, Site Plan Review on 7.18 acres, and Preliminary Plat on 7.18 acres into 1 lot and road right of way. Location: Northwest Quadrant of Valley View Road and Topview Road. The public hearing opened at 7:03 p.m. Dave Carland, Vice President of Development noted there has been a reduction from a two story to single story building and 100,000 to 75,000 square feet in response to traffic concerns. Routing traffic across Home Depot is one option. Engineering recommended Topview Road and access be reflected in the plans. The neighbors expressed concern about safety and traffic. Foote asked about the traffic report. Carland said the traffic consultant indicated traffic is less than the guide plan. He felt traffic would be less since the report is 100% use of parking spots and this seldom occurs. Sodt inquired about the relationship PPT and Home Depot and whether they would object to access through the lot. Carland said they were the landowners for the PPT property. He has the right as the landlord and there is an easement recorded for the cross connection. It is not a conflict. There is an ingress and egress easement with Home Depot. His discussion with Home Depot included major drive modifications. Koenig asked Carland to provide examples of buildings done by CSM in Eden Prairie. Community Planning Board Minutes April 23, 2001 Page 3 Carland state there were three buildings on the hill off Anagram Drive, buildings on Golden Triangle Drive, the PPT Vision Building, and the building on Prairie Oaks occupied by BioTech. Franzen noted the Planning Board approved a two-story 100,000 square foot building on this site in December. At its January 16, 2001 meeting, Council suggested staff should look at widening Topview Road, adding a sidewalk and other safety conditions. On February 20, 2001, CSM requested Council consideration of a one story, 75,000 square foot building. Council directed the developer to return to the Community Planning Board for a public hearing on the new plan. The project will require a guide plan change from regional commercial and medium density residential to office. The guide plan change may be a better land use because of its proximity to residential. A waiver of office use from 50% to 85% is requested. A full access to Topview Road was initially presented to the Council. Council directed staff to reconsider access and safety. The City hired a firm for a traffic study. If there is no driveway access from Topview, it increases traffic on Valley View and reduces safety. The best solution is a balanced approach that maintains safety and efficiency of all roads. Gray noted office use is a preferred use. There is a fair amount of morning and evening traffic that is the opposite direction of the residential traffic. The current traffic and expected traffic with full occupancy was compared; there is minor growth in total traffic volume. The study considered a right-in right-out. There is virtually no impact during a.m. traffic. Evening exiting traffic on Topview northbound provides the growth. The character of southbound Topview road in the evening will be less than it currently is in the morning. Safety is a concern for neighbors and the City. There is no such thing as a totally safe roadway. This is not a uniquely steep road. Topview is a fairly short road; it is controlled by a three way stop at the north end. Speeds on Topview Road averaged 23 miles per hour. Traffic, especially southbound, runs slower than on most roads of similar character. Drivers may make a-turns and will use the exiting capacity of the intersection. He described a typical traffic pattern at Home Depot and a problematic corner. An exit on Topview would create less of a safety problem than expecting drivers to go through the parking lot. The net result with moving ahead without a signalized intersection will create more congestion in westbound lanes during peak hours. The capacity is there. Valley View Road will grow; improvements should be made in the future. Nelson asked if the City had any rights to an easement if a service road along Valley View is needed. She asked whether that would be a possibility. Community Planning Board Minutes April 23, 2001 Page 4 Gray no public easement, agreement to provide a cross — access. There is not room for a frontage road without removing significant parking. There is not an impediment to doing a driveway connection access on Topview. Nelson said she would be concerned about a-turns on Valley View; there are a lot of young drivers on that, near high school, would be concerned about complicating it knowing there are several hundred 16 and 17 year old drivers Gray said drivers trying to go east on Valley View would make a u-turn without driveway access onto Topview. Koenig asked for clarification on what is being proposed, whether it was a stop sign or yield. Gray said it is a stop condition for the driveway. Koenig said one of the concerns about the safety is that it is a curving winding road. Gray said that at the stop sign you can see Valley View Road. Koenig said in the winter icy conditions make the road difficult to navigate. Gray said one reason Topview goes slow it is the top of the hill looking down creates feeling of insecurity. There is no accident history on Topview road. There will not be a permanent signal between Topview and Prairie Center Drive. A signal on Valley View would create havoc with congestion and work against the neighborhood. The in-bound maneuver is not necessary. The roadway could be only out. That provides all of the enhancement needed from a safety perspective. Letting people come out, make the right turn, and use the signalized intersection for east bound would help. Stoelting asked for public comment. Greg Olson, 7373 Ann Court, said he uses the road regularly. It is hazardous and he drives slowly; the greatest issue is the curve, hill, and slope. The possibility of someone heading north and trying to go left in front of traffic coming down the hill would create a danger. The road is inadequately maintained during the winter. Traffic coming out may not get out fast enough and collisions could result. He is puzzled by the statement that the increase in usage would not be significant on Topview but would be significant on Valley View. He believes that people will attempt a-turns unless it is clearly marked. Traffic will want to go eastbound and the best access and interchange is Prairie Center Drive and Highway 5. If the intersection is signed clearly where traffic should flow to reach 5 and 494 it should help. The consultant's report said the access to Topview is less than optimal. Direct traffic to where interchanges that can handle the flow are located. Community Planning Board Minutes April 23, 2001 Page 5 Jim Duncan, Roberts Drive and Topview, said he has lived there for 25 years and there should be a sanding truck there from November through April. He said there have been many accidents as a result of the grade. There is not a problem with the building but there should be a service road taking traffic to major lights. It would be a mistake to put it onto Topview. A right-out would make sense, but a right-in would create more traffic on Roberts Drive. Katy Grandy of 7203 Topview Road, travels at least twice per day. She is in favor of the building but not the driveway. Residents would like to have the street remain residential. The bottom of the hill cannot be seen from the top. A service road would be one option. A light at PPT vision is another. She travels westbound and southbound in the morning; lights are metered for flow of traffic. Perhaps metering would be an option. Transferring developer funds to a signalized light is another option. If the only option is to put in a driveway access at Topview residents would prefer a right-out. Motion by Nelson, second by Koenig to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0. The public hearing closed at 8:06 p.m. Seymour asked whether Topview Road would be a painted median, an expansion to the turn lane as opposed to a cement median restricting traffic into the driveway. Gray said the volumes are low it would be painted to direct the approach, it is similar to coming out of Cub going to 212. It allows a right turn on red. Stoelting summarized issues as directing traffic more to highway 5, visibility concerns, construction of a service road, installation of a signalized intersection utilizing developer funds, and right-out only. Gray said right-out only would allow exiting on Topview. The right-in is not necessary. It would become a one-way exit from the parking lot. There is no northbound access into the site. It's not likely that people will go to Prairie Center Drive, go past Rainbow through a signal at Plaza Drive. 60% of the traffic will go to eastbound 494 if they want to go to 212, 169 and 494. Prairie Center Drive will be a congested area. People learn their way around. Directional signs are for unfamiliar. People will use the preferred way. Signalizing the area is not a reality. Valley View is a county road and not a city road. Traffic would not warrant a signal, even if the city would pay for it. The question is whether a serious hazard is created on Topview by a driveway access. There are 200 cars during peak hours in the morning. During evening peak hours, there are 65 coming down and 200 going up. It could work better than it currently does. The cars coming down drive slower than average. Slippery road conditions occur only 1/10 of 1% of the time. The road faces south and recovers from slippery conditions. Icy conditions will Community Planning Board Minutes April 23, 2001 Page 6 create slippery roads in every situation. Another question was a dedicated drive- aisle and that is not going to happen. Parking would have to be taken away. The riskiest maneuver is backing up and that is what happens in drive-aisles. Foote said the right-out is a good idea. It should be configured so no one could make a right in. Nelson asked about the possibility of straightening Topview Road. Gray said it could be done but would not result in much change operationally. The road is entered from a stop. The Topview/Valley View Road cannot be changed. Nelson said there was an alternate exit onto Baker Road for the neighborhood. Gray said if there was a history of less maintenance, it was probably correct. Intersections and driveways are sanded; there will likely be sanded more with a driveway access. Koenig asked Gray for clarification on the traffic study 2015 Valley View, Prairie Center Drive, entrances to 494, and extra lane on Topview. Do we rely on Hennepin County and timeline? Gray explained they operate well right now. Hennepin County would participate on a cost basis but he could not guarantee a timeline. There will be choices to be made on which improvements should be made first. Improvements will be required, but funding and timelines cannot be guaranteed. Koenig noted in the traffic study it states if improvements are not made on entrances to 494 by 2015, it is predicted to be very difficult. She questioned whether the City would have to work with the County. Gray said yes, on improvements in those areas. He addressed signals Hennepin County would never install a signal with that type of traffic volume even if the city would pay for it. Signal timing works to a certain traffic volume and then breaks down. Nelson stated the right-out only is a good solution. Her preference would be to leave it as a larger building and would like to approve it as such. If they could keep traffic onto Topview and not deal with inbound. She has no problem with the smaller building but doesn't think smaller is necessary. She agrees with the office use. Koenig appreciates the audience comments and concerns. She has driven the road many times. The best compromise is right-out only. She does not believe people will respect no U-turn signs. She supports the smaller building plan. Community Planning Board Minutes April 23, 2001 Page 7 Seymour said he likes the smaller building and the right-out only makes more sense. Sodt concurred that he appreciated concerns of the residents and right-out would address their safety concerns. There would not be significant additions to traffic. Motion by Nelson, second by Foote to approve Valley View Corporate Center by CSM Equities, L.L.C. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Medium Density Residential to Office on 2.39 acres and from Regional Commercial to Office on 4.79 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 7.18 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 7.18 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 on 7.18 acres, Site Plan Review on 7.18 acres, and Preliminary Plat on 7.18 acres into 1 lot and road right of way according to the recommendations in staff report and with a one-way right out only. Motion carried 6-0. B. INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL AUDITORIUM by International School. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 38.4 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 38.4 acres, Zoning District Amendment within the Public Zoning District on 38.4 acres and Site Plan Review on 38.4 acres. Location: Beach Road. The public hearing opened at 8:45 p.m. Franzen said this project is a PUD amendment to add an auditorium and classrooms to the International School of Minnesota. The project meets City requirements. Franzen read a letter received from Gerri Baakonen and his response to her questions. 17 acres are open space for tree preservation and lakeshore protection. Hennepin County owns one acre. The International School is exempt from property taxes. The school parks on a private road and grass areas during special events. Notices to property owners are sent to those within 500 feet of the boundaries of the land. Ms. Baakonen's letter and Franzen's response will be included as part of the minutes. John Harris, Principal of Harris Architects. The school would like to move forward with a 350 seat performing arts auditorium and testing. The auditorium is proposed with a new main entrance. Foote inquired about parking on the property and whether it would be adequate for auditorium use. Harris said 220 spots. Franzen said it would be used during the day by faculty and students and there would likely be more than one person per car for special events. Community Planning Board Minutes April 23, 2001 Page 8 Sodt said if people parked on Beach Road they would be very far from the auditorium. He said he would anticipate vehicles parking on the private road into the school but not on Beach Road. Foote said he has seen parking on Beach Road occasionally but is not sure what it is in relation to. Motion by Nelson, second by Foote to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6- 0. The public hearing closed at 8:56 p.m. Motion by Nelson, second by Foote to approve International School Auditorium by International School Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 38.4 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 38.4 acres, Zoning District Amendment within the Public Zoning District on 38.4 acres and Site Plan Review on 38.4 acres. Motion carried 6-0. C. EDEN PRAIRIE CENTER SIGN PLAN by General Growth Properties. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 80 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 80 acres, and Zoning District Amendment within the C-Reg Zoning District on 80 acres. Location: Prairie Center Drive. The public hearing opened at 8:58 p.m. Bill Mosten Vice President of Development for General Growth Properties said he has two concerns with recommendations in the staff report. The proposal is the culmination of the project; this is a critical piece of the project. They are anxious to bring new customers to Eden Prairie Center and bring return customers. The scope is appropriate for the size of the project and is consistent with General Growth's projects across the country. The signs are attractive and consistent with the community. He has discussed with the staff the Barnes and Noble sign; they are a key anchor and they are in a position of least visibility. As a condition of their location General Growth agreed to provide signage. The identification sign on 212 is part of the identity for the center and community center. They would allow the city and community to post events. Otherwise they agree with the staff report. Franzen said the mall renovation should be completed this fall. All but two sign requests are reasonable. The additional Barnes and Noble signage based on wall space in the building. They could be allowed a second sign if the two signs split the allowable size. The existing PUD sign on 212 exceeds City code. The entrance signs were traded for the sign on 212. They could either not have the sign or have it 20 feet tall and 80 square feet. Reader boards can display time and temperature. This would set a precedent if things were advertised on the sign. The PUD sign should be in accordance with code and allow only public service announcements. Community Planning Board Minutes April 23, 2001 Page 9 There was no public comment. Motion by Nelson, second by Foote to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6- 0. The public hearing closed at 9:10 p.m. Nelson inquired about where the movie theater sign would be located. Mosten said it is an 18-screen movie theater, it is ineffective to advertise all of the shows on a readerboard and they do not plan to have anything but signs at the entrance. Nelson asked about the need for all of the directional signs. It is a small mall and all the buildings have large signs on them. It is obvious where things are on the outside where major tenants are located. It seems like clutter. The mall has been there for a long time and it is evident where the stores are. At the very worst people would have to drive around it once. Mosten said customer convenience was very important and they did not want people to have to drive around to look for stores. Customers have told them it is confusing. These directional signs are now industry standard. They blend into the landscaping and are effective. Sodt asked whether there was a study indicating numbers of new customers. Mosten said no. Sodt agreed with Nelson that most customers would be existing Eden Prairie residents. Stoelting asked for a visual of the Barnes and Noble sign. Steve Johnson, VP Sales Northwest sign, said the directional signage is a convenience. Burnsville Center is going through the same thing. This is not unique to the site. Franzen asked Mosten about a typical size for a regional mall. Mosten said he was unsure of the boundaries of the trade area. It goes north to Ridgedale, east to Mall of America, and southwest quite a way toward Victoria, and Mankato. He can provide a map of the trade area. Franzen said he was trying to clarify that the mall will draw residents from outside the City and directional signs are important for customers who do not use Community Planning Board Minutes April 23, 2001 Page 10 the mall on a regular basis. ADC considered each building a separate site. This could be considered six parcels and a 36 square foot sign for each site could be provided. Stoelting asked Franzen to clarify the Barnes and Noble sign issue. Franzen said if based upon the size of their space they were entitled to 100 square feet. By waiver, the City could split the allowable size of the sign. Mosten said Barnes and Noble gave up the end location in trade for a sign. Stoelting asked Mosten to address the large sign on 212. Mosten said it was to create one large identification sign that could be seen from the freeway. They have had many comments from the public that the mall is difficult to find. The secondary reason is it can convey messages. Seymour asked if it would be in the same place as the current theater sign. Mosten said it would be in that location. This would be an additional sign. Nelson asked about the height of the existing sign. Franzen said it was 36 feet tall and 336 square feet. Nelson asked whether they have the right to put another equivalent sign at that location. Franzen said changing the shape, size and number of signs will require board and council approval. Nelson inquired whether they left the size and shape the same but changed the wording. Franzen said if no significant changes were made that would be within the spirit and intent for which it was approved. However, that waiver was granted in exchange for no other street signs. Nelson asked if they could go in with a 20-foot high sign if they wanted. Franzen said they could put up an 80 square foot sign 20 feet high. They are asking for waivers for other signs so Council and the Board could make judgements on that. The board should decide whether they should have a PUD sign and how large it should be. Sodt said he could not find a C-2 or N sign on the plan. Community Planning Board Minutes April 23, 2001 Page 11 Mosten said C-2 is under the bridge, there is a walkway between the Target parking deck and the mall. The end sign from the food court mall entrance is N, at location CA. Sodt noted there were a lot of variance requests. He asked whether all of them were necessary. He looked at entrance A6 from Prairie Center Drive. Most of that traffic would be heading into Tower Square. A3 seems to be an internal access from the ring road. He asked whether those were essential. Mosten said those were primary entrance signs. They have tried to provide consistency throughout the site. The original ordinance probably did not consider a mall this size. This should be a town center from all points of entry. The sign at A-6 is the same as the rest. The sign plan was prepared for customers, not necessarily from the ordinance. Sodt expressed concern about setting precedence. Mosten asked Franzen to clarify the PUD guideline defining the center as unique. Franzen said regional malls typically have several access points because of the need to evenly distribute traffic. Everything but the PUD sign Community scale malls have only two driveways so there is not a need for additional signage. Mosten said it is a matter of consistency as well identifying entrances. Franzen reviewed reasons for granting waivers. Sign waivers are being requested because of the scale of development in relationship to the number of entrances and size of site, number of people visiting the site, internal and external intersections, and the low visibility of the site in relationship to surrounding public roads. The mall must be treated differently than community centers because of its scale. Foote said considering the project's size he had no problem with any of the signs except for the large one in the front. Smaller is not necessarily better, with the exception of the large PUD sign. He dislikes the lighted portion of it. Sodt questioned the need for the A4 sign and E sign. Mosten said the E sign identified the overall sign from a distance across the freeway and A4 was a low sign telling drivers to turn in to the mall. Alternative size for E is up for discussion. Sodt suggested the sign would be similar to Mystic Lake Casino sign. Community Planning Board Minutes April 23, 2001 Page 12 Mosten noted he was willing to discuss alternatives. The sign package is very important. Sodt asked about the timeline. Mosten said the PUD sign would not be a problem, the others would be a major problem. Nelson said she has a problem with the PUD sign with the height and disliked the directional signs because of the height; 5'9" was too tall. They should be lower to the ground and less intrusive. B-1, B-2 and B-3 will be covered with snow. A scrolling message board next to the mall would not be in keeping with the rest of the City. Mosten said they have done studies identifying appropriate height of signs for vehicles coming in. He asked his coworkers to elaborate. Seymour said he appreciates the uniqueness of the site and understands the need for signs. The design of the signs are pleasing. He disliked the PUD sign. Two signs could be at Barnes and Noble if the square footage did not exceed 100 square feet. Franzen said if the board wanted to split the square footage that would be reasonable. Barnes and Noble is beneath the theater and could be treated as a separate box. Foote suggested the board take action this with the exception of the PUD sign. Franzen said General Growth could withdraw the request for the PUD sign. They are entitled to a PUD sign but could withdraw it and come back. Foote suggested this option. General Growth withdrew the request for the PUD sign. Sodt said they could make a motion listing changes prior to council expressing reservations. Franzen said the board could recommend approval of the project with conditions. The discussion in the minutes will convey the board's concerns to the Council. Koenig said she was very satisfied with the internal sign package. She likes the logo and does not have a problem with the PUD sign except the possibility of setting a precedent with the video. Community Planning Board Minutes April 23, 2001 Page 13 Motion by Sodt, second by Foote to approve, adding further consideration of directional signs, meeting the code and split with Barnes and Noble sign. Foote stated the motion was not clear about directional signs meeting code. There is no problem with the directional signs. He would leave the part about Barnes and Noble sign. Koenig agreed with Foote's comments. Stoelting said the board could vote on the motion or amend it. Sodt said he still would like the directional signs reconsidered. Vice-Chair Stoelting called for a roll-call vote. Nelson yes, Foote no, Koenig no, Seymour no, Sodt yes, Stoelting no. Motion failed 2-4. Motion by Foote, second by Koenig to approve General Growth Properties' request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 80 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 80 acres, and Zoning District Amendment within the C-Reg Zoning District on 80 acres, with the Barnes and Noble sign be configured to the size which it is entitled to by ordinance. Koenig asked whether PUD sign needed to be mentioned. Franzen noted the proponent had withdrawn the request for the PUD sign. Vice-Chair Stoelting called for a roll-call vote. Nelson no, Foote yes, Koenig yes, Seymour yes, Sodt yes, Stoelting yes. Motion carried 5-1. V. PUBLIC MEETING VI. MEMBERS' REPORTS Foote said he was going through an Eden Prairie magazine reading the survey results suggesting a municipal golf course. He asked about a possible location. Franzen said 160 acres would be needed. There is a possible location along Spring Road near the airport; it is part of the Lynn Charlson property. VII. CONTINUING BUSINESS Community Planning Board Minutes April 23, 2001 Page 14 VIII. NEW BUSINESS Franzen noted for the May 14'h Planning Board meeting, the Costco site would be revisited for a housing development, and a mining operation would be considered on Grace Church property. The City code has no provision for mining as a conditional use. The board will discuss whether it should amend the code. Representation from legal counsel will be present to advise the board. The Heritage project will return with a modification to area C. Nelson asked about the characteristics of the mining operation. Franzen said it would include 1 million cubic yards of gravel. Koenig asked if housing on the Costco site was similar to the one presented to Council. Franzen said yes. IX. PLANNERS' REPORTS X. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Koenig, second by Foote to adjourn. Motion carried 6-0. The meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m.