Planning Commission - 11/13/2000 APPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE COMMUNITY PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2000 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER
Council Chambers
8080 Mitchell Road
BOARD MEMBERS: Ken Brooks, Kenneth E. Clinton, Frantz
Corneille, Randy Foote, Vicki Koenig,
Kathy Nelson, Susan Stock, Ray Stoelting
STAFF MEMBERS: Krista Flemming, Planner I
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
Chair Corneille called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Chair Corneille,
Commissioners Brooks, Clinton, Foote, Koenig, Nelson, Stock, Stoelting.
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Motion by Nelson, second by Corneille to amend the order of the agenda a and b. Motion
carried, 8-0.
III. MINUTES
A. Monday, October 23, 2000
Koenig said on page 6, second paragraph, it should read that there should be a
conservation monument to delineate the area of the dam.
Motion by Clinton, second by Nelson to approve the minutes as amended.
Motion carried, 8-0.
Community Planning Board Minutes
November 13, 2000
Page 2
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. AZTEC TOWN OFFICE PARK by DaVem, Inc. Request for Guide Plan
Change from Neighborhood Commercial to Office on 6.48 acres, Planned Unit
Development Concept Amendment on 6.48 acres, Planned Unit Development
District Review with waivers on 4.46 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to
Office on 4.46 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 6.48 acres into 1 lot and 1 outlot.
Location: Aztec Drive.
David Fitzick and Tom Dunsmore of DaVern, Inc. presented the PUD concept
amendment. The offices are intended for small businesses. They object to some
of the requirements for architecture, berming, trees, and parking.
Foote asked whether the exterior could be modified when purchased.
Fitzick said the exterior would be governed by an association just as in a
townhome association.
Tom Dunsmore of Davern, Inc., addressed the issues of the berm and the parking.
There are five to eight parking stalls per unit in similar development projects.
They would like less parking required. They hired an engineer to address the berm
and showed sight lines. A fence is proposed for security purposes. Lowering the
berm would not provide a view different than the current view. A boulder wall
with a fence on top will mitigate the sight line from the house that would
otherwise have a view of the buildings.
Franzen stated the office use next to residential would be preferable to a
commercial use because there are less mitigation concerns such as noise and
traffic. Staff is asking the developer to install the berm as requested, meet the
parking requirements, exterior requirements, and all other city code requirements.
Unresolved issues of this item include transition, parking and exterior materials.
The proposed plan does not provide an acceptable transition to the existing single
family homes to the east. The existing berm must be maintained and extended,
and plantings should be included. Required parking on site is 5 spaces per 1,000
square feet of building. Buildings should be rearranged or eliminated to meet
parking requirements. The proponent is requesting a waiver of percentage of
exterior materials of 75% to 20%. The City has not granted an exterior material
waiver for commercial or office buidings since 1984 when the code was amended
to its current requirements. The proponent has illustrated a wood building with
additional rooflines and detail; the brick building could be revised to a design
similar to the office building at Dell Road and Cascade Drive.
Nancy Bergstrom, 12510 Cockspur Court, stated her residence was immediately
behind the highest part of the berm. She was speaking on behalf of the residents.
Residents would like the Board to abide by the staff recommendation. They are
Community Planning Board Minutes
November 13, 2000
Page 3
concerned about the parking placement behind the building and shaving the berm.
Eliminating part of the berm would allow more noise pollution; it provides a
visual and noise buffer. They would like to see a landscape plan as well.
Foote asked how residents felt about commercial versus office zoning.
Bergstrom said they felt this was the best use of the property but would like for
the developer to abide by staff recommendation and city code.
Paul Kunkel, 12508 Cockspur Court, said his property was reflected in elevation
B-B. He presented photographs illustrating the lowest point of the backyard.
Koenig asked about the trees in the photograph and whether they were on his
property.
Kunkel said he did not know.
Debbie Myers, 12495 Cockspur Court, expressed concern that the neighboring
area stay as it is. If the berm is taken away it may affect property value.
Doug Lampe, 8510 Darnell, inquired about the 20 foot utility easement behind his
property, which is reflected in D-D. He asked how this could be mitigated if there
was a utility easement. There is about 12 feet between the proposed property and
the utility easement. Not many trees could be planted. The proposed stone wall is
set back.
Foote asked how far it was from his property to the proposed fence.
Lampe said 50-55 feet.
Corneille summarized the neighbors' concerns as transitions, parking lot
placement and adequacy, and the utility easement. There was no further public
comment.
Motion by Brooks, second by Stoelting to close the public hearing. Motion
carried, 8-0.
Chuck Plot,project engineer for Davern, IL He said it was not feasible or possible
to extend the berm the length of the property. They will install retaining walls to
maintain the berm where it exists. They are leaving most of it in place. To extend
the berm the entire length of the property with the grade change would require an
enormous amount of fill. They propose to build the units between the residents
and highway 212; the units will actually create a noise buffer. As for the utility
easement in the corner of the property an extensive wall will go in that area. The
wall is needed so that the area over the sewer line will remain undisturbed.
Community Planning Board Minutes
November 13, 2000
Page 4
Corneille asked the board to address the zoning issue first.
Nelson asked about the specific amount of reduction of the berm.
Fitzick said the berm exists in two sections, A-A and B-B. The berm at its highest
point or peak will be cut down about five to six feet and less than that farther
along the berm.
Nelson said it was appropriate to change this to office use rather than commercial.
Brooks concurred; he has issues with the berm.
Foote agreeed with the zoning use; his concern was with the berm and parking.
Corneille said staff and neighbors have agreed the proposed use is better. The plan
requires waivers and he has not heard the compelling reasons for granting the
waivers especially building materials. He is not in favor of the parking waivers.
The grade is steep; the contour line of the building is 880 and at the rear of the
building it is 870 feet; this is approximately a six percent grade and not excessive.
The city engineer said the existing topography was 880 existing elevation to 868
at the corner, or 12 feet. In order to maintain the elevation that fits the topography
the design must fit the grade. The homes without the berm are below the property.
This works in favor of the sight lines; it is easier to provide screening because
existing homes are below the property.
Nelson asked whether office units would be lost if the berm remained and
whether the development would be feasible without those units.
The developer said three units and some parking would be lost. To retain the berm
requires two four foot retaining walls. Losing the office units would necessitate an
unreasonable price for the remaining units.
Nelson inquired why the developer would prefer wood instead of brick; brick is
easier to maintain.
The developer said they were attempting to achieve a maintenance free exterior;
100% brick in the rambler style did not provide the best architecture or residential
look that they were trying to achieve.
Nelson asked about the differences in the center units.
The developer said they were attempting to provide a variety. He inquired
whether Nelson objected to one of the elevations.
Community Planning Board Minutes
November 13, 2000
Page 5
Nelson said her goal would be long-term maintenance-free exteriors.
Brooks asked for staff comment regarding the berming.
Franzen said the city code has a section, Site plan and Architectural Design
Review that addresses the transition. There is not a formula; it depends upon sight
line and property uses. The berm should be as high as possible.
Brooks inquired about the price per unit and square footage.
Fitzick said $160-$198K per unit and 1120— 1344 square feet per level.
Foote asked staff for comments regarding elevations.
Franzen adressed the example of the Dell Road and Cascade office building.
Architects addressed the building to make it look more residential. The Lake
Idlewild building required better architecture and this was in a commercial office
area. There are choices in the staff report. The brick, glass, and stone requirement
could be met. Masonry and stucco are limited to 25%. It does not need to be a
100% brick building.
Foote said he liked the roof line top and brick bottom.
Stock asked for a definition of masonry.
Fitzick said it was a manufactured exterior material.
Franzen said as presented it would not meet the brick or natural stone
requirements.
Stock said in the elevation A-A section it is just under 17 feet and there is a 4
foot fence on top.
Fitzick said the height of building is 13 feet.
Stock asked whether the fence would go the entire length of the residential area.
Fitzick confirmed that it would.
Koenig asked about the trees as compared to the elevation.
Fitzick said the trees shown on the elevation would remain. The existing trees in
photographs would remain as well.
Community Planning Board Minutes
November 13, 2000
Page 6
Fitzick said there was dangerous rubble near the berm. It was their intent to grade,
sod, and irrigate it.
Stoelting said the use, as far as office compared to commercial, was very good.
He asked staff about the parking recommendation.
Franzen said they were looking for conclusive evidence that 3.3 per 1,000 square
feet would work. The developer provided three examples. There are buildings
around Eden Prairie that were given parking waivers, and parking became a
problem. When these projects expanded, additional parking was built to meet City
Code requirements. The square footage is spread out horizonally. If it were two
story, such as a thirty foot tall office building, there would be more room for
parking. Some of the buildings could be pulled together to meet the berming
requirement but the parking requirements would not be met. Residents were
concerned about parking in back of the project. Parking could be moved to the
front. He asked the building official and fire marshall about how many people
could be in the buildings. They said 30-40 people could be in the buildings and
thus parking may be needed.
Fitzick stated it would not comply with ADA. He showed existing offices related
to parking stalls and a layout of typical offices. Neighbors are concerned about
the sight line. Flipping the parking and the buildings would require neighbors to
look at the buildings.
Nelson inquired about the lighting and whether some could be added in the
middle of the parking lot for security purposes.
Nelson asked whether there was lighting in the pond.
Fitzick said that had not been addressed.
Corneille asked for a summary.
Fitzick said each unit has its own mechanical room, stairway, and equipment.
Outside dimensions alone were not a fair assessment for parking space and
DaVern was requesting 1) a grant of 3.4 parking spots per unit, 2) they will meet
code requirements for exterior, eliminate two units and put a berm there. They
will make three building slabs on grade to further reduce parking spaces needed.
They would be approximately 13 spaces short of council. They are trying to be
friendly and sensitive.
Tom said they have been approved in Inver Grove with 31 units, Maple Grove,
and Plymouth. It is being received very well in the market.
Community Planning Board Minutes
November 13, 2000
Page 7
Foote noted he appreciated the concessions but had a problem with the parking;
what if parking is a problem in the future.
Fitzick said he provides proof of parking on adjoining remaining or additional
property. He thought they could substantiate the parking needed.
Nelson appreciated the concession; an aerator should be added to the ponding
area. There are a lot of buildings around town with inadequate parking. She would
approve with the addition of the aerator. She inquired whether units could be
combined.
Dunsmore said a lot combination would be required. The walls are the property
line.
Clinton asked whether proof of parking would be added.
Franzen said it could be required as part of the developers agreement.
Fitzick asked about the time limit for proof of parking.
Franzen said it was indefinite.
Dunsmore asked whether the 13 parking stalls could be incorporated into a
developer agreeement.
Franzen said the adjoining property could be office as well. The parking
requirements should be met on the site.
Foote said the Board would have to see the details.
Koenig said she would like to see the plan again after it was revised. She asked
whether they needed to address the two acre parcel tonight or it could be dealt
with another time.
Motion by Stoelting, second by Nelson to reopen the public hearing. Motion
carried, 8-0.
Motion by Stoelting, second by Nelson to recommend a continuance to December
11, 2000 meeting incorporating the following requirements:
1. Exterior materials meet the 75% requirement of city code
2. Plan meet parking requirements of city code
3. Incorporate developers concessions,
4. Include aeration,
5. Increase transition area
Community Planning Board Minutes
November 13, 2000
Page 8
Koenig asked whether the pond was a NURP pond.
Gray said there are a number of stormwater ponds where there are fountains.
Algae, duckweed, and various vegetation are present. Commercial sites adding
chemical treatments to ponds would be normal maintenance procedure. Aeration
may help. Algae indicates some components of high concentration of fertilizer
such as phosphorus. Aeration will raise oxygen levels but won't remove
phosphorus.
Nelson said she did not want mosquito breeding grounds.
Gray said the water depth would not allow it.
Koenig asked whether they would be setting a precedent if a developer would be
required to put aeration in the pond.
Gray said it has been permitted but not required. The most common treatment is
addition of chemicals.
Stoelting amended the motion to make the fountain optional.
Clinton seconded the amendment
Motion carried, 8-0.
Amended motion carried, 8-0.
B. SHADY OAK TECHNOLOGY BUILDING ADDITION by Mount Properties.
Request for Planned Unit Development Concept amendment on 2.7 acres,
Planned Unit Development District Review on 2.7 acres, Zoning District
Amendment within the I-2 Zoning District on 2.7 acres, and Site Plan Review on
2.7 acres. Location: 6875 Shady Oak Road.
The public hearing opened at 8:33 p.m. The proposed expansion will increase the
size of the existing building (currently under construction) to a permitted size in
the I-2 zoning district. The waiver for 75% office use granted for the existing
building will be eliminated. The smaller existing building and waiver for
increased office use was based upon trip generation not exceeding what would
occur with a standard industrial building meeting City code. Staff recommends
approval based upon recommendations on page three of the staff report.
Steve Michaels with Mount Properties and Bob Sofelt presented the proposed
expansion. The building meets the 75% brick and glass exterior requirements and
Community Planning Board Minutes
November 13, 2000
Page 9
this would be continued in the expanded portion. 109 parking stalls and 20,000
square feet. A group would like to lease the entire building. They require more
storage space and about 6,000 feet would be added on the southweest corner of
the property. It meets all of the code requirements. 91 parking stalls would be
provided; they are withdrawing the request for 75% office use of the building.
Curb cuts and utilities would remain as proposed.
There was no public comment.
Motion by Brooks, second by Corneille to close the public hearing at 7:06 p.m..
Motion carried, 8-0.
Motion by Stoelting, second by Nelson to recommend approval of the request by
Mount Properties for Planned Unit Development Concept amendment on 2.7
acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 2.7 acres, Zoning District
Amendment within the I-2 Zoning District on 2.7 acres, and Site Plan Review on
2.7 acres at 6875 Shady Oak Road. Motion carried, 8-0.
V. MEMBERS' REPORTS
VI. CONTINUING BUSINESS
VII. NEW BUSINESS
VIII. PLANNERS' REPORTS
IX. ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Koenig, second by Brooks to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m.