Planning Commission - 12/11/2000 APPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE COMMUNITY PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY, DECEMBER 11, 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
Vice-Chair Stoelting called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Vice-Chair
Stoelting, Commissioners Brooks, Clinton, Foote, Koenig, Stock, Stoelting. Corneille and
Nelson were absent.
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Motion by Clinton, second by Koenig to approve the agenda. Motion carried, 6-0.
III. MINUTES
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. ANSON REZONING by K. Dawn Anson. Request for Zoning District Change
from Rural to R1-13.5 Zoning District on .80 acres. Location: 16850 Duck Lake
Trail.
The public hearing opened at 7:02 p.m.
Franzen said rezoning would be consistent with the surrounding area. One house
can be built on the lot meeting setback and shoreland requirements. Staff
recommends approval of the request.
Community Planning Board Minutes
December 11, 2000
Page 2
Motion by Clinton, second by Brooks to close the public hearing. Motion carried,
6-0. The hearing closed at 7:03 p.m.
Motion by Clinton, second by Brooks to approve the request by K.Dawn Anson
for a Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 Zoning District on .80 acres
based on plans dated November 20, 2000 and subject to the recommendations of
the Staff Report dated December 8, 2000. Motion carried, 6-0.
B. AZTEC TOWN OFFICE PARK by DaVern, 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.
Franzen noted issues with the building architecture have been resolved. The
buildings meet city code and have included the detail from the "all wood"
buildings. The berming works with proof of parking but not if the proof of
parking has to be constructed. Additional and larger trees are needed to
compensate for a shorter berm. This is shown on the Exhibit A attached to the
staff report. Parking dimensions need to be revised to meet code requirements.
The project is short 7 spaces. The plan should be revised to include the required
parking, or reduce the total square footage by 1,400 square feet. Staff
recommends a continuance to January 8, 2001, in order for the Board and
neighborhood to see revised plans before the item goes to the Council. The
Developer must agree to extend the 120 day project review process in writing to
April 1, 2001.
Tom Dunsmore of DaVern, Inc., stated they would prefer to go forward with
alternative#1, staff recommendation for approval except for the 12-14 foot
evergreens and parking requirements. They are overparked; normally there are 8
parking stalls per unit. There are 18 1/2 units and have provided 11 parking spots
per unit. They would like a two stage approach to proof of parking; if it is needed
they could plant 6-8 foot evergreens the likelihood of survival would be greater.
David Fitzick of DaVern, Inc. said they would like to modify pines to 6 feet;he
discussed the trees with Gerten Nurseries and 12-14 foot trees have a lower
survival rate. The berm was increased. This will shield the parking but not the
building. 12-14 foot trees would hide the building; the ordinance only requires
shielding parking.
Dunsmore presented the D-D elevation, southerly most angle from the berm; the
berm will be built up twelve feet. With a 6-8 foot trees in the back row, it will
have the same effect as larger trees. They could move the trees on top of the berm
if necessary to create more parking.
Community Planning Board Minutes
December 11, 2000
Page 3
Franzen said there were three alternatives in the report; the changes necessary are
listed under item 1, to include evergreen trees. There is a minimum tree height of
6' in the ordinance. Plant materials must be 6' — 12' and a variety in size. There
have not been problems in the past with survival of trees with larger sizes,
especially with projects that have irrigation systems. Shorter trees would require
raising the berm higher in the center of the property, requiring more horizontal
distance, which would remove the proof of parking area. Other items are to meet
the parking dimensions in city code requirements. Staff recommends alternative 2,
returning in January, to show the board and residents the final berm height and
plantings.
Doug Lampher, resident, said he was concerned with the utility easement, there is
a manhole and grading over it. His fence was damaged previously and there is
runoff into his yard. The 12-14 foot trees reduced to 6-8 foot and raising the berm
leaves the parking unclear. Otherwise the project provides a better transition than
before. On the east side of the berm there is wild growth. He asked if that would
be maintained.
Stoelting summarized the concerns with the utility easement and proof of parking
question.
Motion by Koenig, second by Stock to close the public hearing. Motion carried,
6-0.
The public hearing closed at 7:19 p.m.
Brooks asked about the berm and whether the developer agreed with exhibit A
with the trees on top of the berm. There was discussion on the size of the berm at
the last meeting.
Fitzick said they agreed with the size of the berm but not the size of the trees. The
resident at D-D would not have a view of the parking. The grading could be
corrected by creating a swale from the manhole to direct water away from the
resident's yard. Also, the sight line could be taken care of with 6 foot trees.
Brooks asked about the issue of 12 foot rather than 6 foot trees.
Fitzick said larger trees were cost prohibitive and not warranted, as 6 foot trees
would be from a nursery. 12 foot trees would be about$500 more per tree.
Koenig said part of the reason for a transition was providing a buffer between
land uses, not just the sight line, that was part of the reason staff was requesting
the larger trees.
Franzen concurred.
Community Planning Board Minutes
December 11, 2000
Page 4
Koenig noted noise buffer would be a concern as well.
Fitzick said they were providing a buffer and their only disagreement was the size
of the trees.
Dunsmore said the 6 foot trees would provide a significant buffer and sight line
would not allow visibility of the buildings. 12 foot trees would not make a
significant difference.
Koenig asked for staff comment regarding tree size.
Fox said there had not been problems in the past with trees of larger size. Local
nurseries can provide varying sizes of trees, and the city would require a bond, so
the vendor would be responsible.
Clinton asked about the staff report, the second bullet under alternative 2, meet
code requirements for parking, the proponent is 1 space short, 224 vs. 225 for
parking,but then it states the lot should be shifted two feet to the west, lessening
the parking by 7 spaces.
Franzen said shifting it would remove a parking space from the end of each row
to pick up the additional 2 1/2 feet. The proponent could redraw the plans so that
parking requirements would be met even if the parking lot was shifted.
Clinton asked if the proponent would be amenable to that.
Fitzick said they would be amenable to redrawing the plans as a condition of
approval.
Foote asked about the reason for moving the lot.
Franzen said the parking stall dimensions and drive isle lane needed to be 13 1/2
feet wide and this was 11 feet.
Foote asked if there was ever a request before for 14 foot evergreen.
Franzen replied in the Bluffs East commercial project. The reason for the taller
trees is that the berm is 4 feet shorter. Additional horizontal distance would be
needed if the berm height were increased enough to allow for shorter trees.
Stock asked whether the developer would plant the trees as shown.
Dunsmore said they were amenable to 6-8 foot trees, up to 50, in locations shown.
Community Planning Board Minutes
December 11, 2000
Page 5
Stock inquired about the retaining wall and whether it would be put in now.
Dunsmore said they would put in a retaining wall if the proof of parking was
needed. It would remain in its natural state otherwise.
Stock asked whether if parking were put in the berm would be cut down.
Fitzick said the berm would be cut down, a retaining wall would be put in and the
trees would be relocated.
Stock asked whether the retaining wall could be put in now without disturbing
trees.
Fitzick said yes.
Stock inquired what was being done to protect the neighbor's yard on D-D.
Fitzick said they would create a swale so runoff would go away from the yard;
otherwise a small 2-3 foot retaining wall would be put in.
Franzen said the berm before proof of parking was 884, after building proof of
parking the berm would get dropped by 4 feet. If they never build a proof of
parking, the sight lines would go over the top of the berm. If they build a proof of
parking there will be sight lines into the project.
Brooks asked if the proof of parking needed to be turned into parking who would
pay for it.
Franzen said the association would pay for it; or the property owners.
Brooks asked whether it would be made known to the owners.
Franzen said the developers' agreement would be recorded and proof of parking
would be disclosed at the time of closing.
Motion by Stock, second by Koenig to recommend a continuance of the request
by DaVern, Inc. to the January 8, 2001 meeting with direction to revise the
landscaping plan to include additional evergreen trees as depicted on Exhibit A,
Revise the grading plans to be consistent with the site plan, Revise dimensions on
the perpendicular parking areas to meet the code requirements for a 25-foot drive
aisle and 19-foot parking stall length, Revise the plans to show the required onsite
parking and meet the required dimensions for the proof of parking, and Revise
grading to include a swale from elevation D-D.
Community Planning Board Minutes
December 11, 2000
Page 6
Motion by Koenig, second by Stock to reopen the public hearing. Motion carried,
6-0.
Clinton mentioned the 120 day extension that would be necessary for the
developer to agree to.
Fitzick stated they would prefer an approval or denial and did not want to wait
three months.
Franzen said the 120 days would include council approval, it would be three
months of board review.
Brooks asked if the project was denied what would the next step be for the
developer.
Franzen said the project can still go before the council. The staff's position has
not changed on the recommendation. There are still items that need to be
corrected. If the board wants final plans before it goes to council, they can direct
staff to publish the item for Council on January 16'h and still review the project on
January 8t'.
Stock amended the motion to add that the project be continued to January 8h and
it would be published for the January 16'h Council meeting. Motion carried, 6-0.
The original motion carried, 6-0.
Stock left the meeting at 7:50 p.m.
C. 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 7:51 p.m.
Dave Carland, Vice President of Development at CSM corporation, said this was
challenging because of the topography and soil conditions. They have worked
with staff for about four months and agree with staff recommendations.
Becky Sonmore, Project Architect for the development presented the elevation
and site plan. The proposed use is 75-100% office with a maximum of 25%
Community Planning Board Minutes
December 11, 2000
Page 7
storage and light industrial. The parking lot is proposed for light loading. The
parking was planned for 100% office. The exterior material finishes was met.
Franzen said this plan eliminates incompatible uses with the residences to the
north. Office willl have less traffic and noise than commercial. There are a few
minor changes before council, sidewalk connection, additional trees.
Paul Wild, 7337 Top View Road, said he was concerned with the view of the
roofline and whether they would be viewing HVAC. He asked how close to the
intersection the property line ran and whether trees would come all the way up to
Roberts Road. His greatest concern was traffic. The entrance off Top View is
inadequate; left hand turns present a traffic hazard with the s-curve. He would like
to review the traffic study. Westbound traffic can go to the entrance or make a
right hand and then immediate left turn. Off of Top View to Valley View,
stacking could occur. The steepness of the grade is a concern as well. He wanted
to know if there would be additional opportunity for public comment after
reviewing the traffic study.
Stoelting asked the proponent to address some of the concerns.
Sonmore said the parapet was 4 feet;because of the topography there would be
some visibility of the roof. The property does not extend all the way to Robert.
There will be trees to mitigate the sight line.
Stoelting asked staff to address the traffic concerns.
Gray said this land use is office and needs access to the signal at Top View and
Valley View. The only other signalized access is by Home Depot. The road way
is a steep grade with curves; it is short segmented and located near Roberts Drive.
Most traffic is moving slowly. It is a more controlled environment. Without this
type of use utilizing the intersections, the signal may not be needed. The signal
was placed there on a temporary basis with state and county approval during 212
construction. A permanent signal would require enough traffic to justify it.
Wild asked whether it was considered as a right-turn exit only.
Gray said that specific alternative was not considered. It could be implemented if
the situation became problematic.
Koenig asked about the feasibility of a traffic light on Valley View and
eliminating access onto Top View.
Gray said it was doubtful the county would approve it and that it could be
justified.
Community Planning Board Minutes
December 11, 2000
Page 8
Koenig said she understood concerns about Top View; the light is a benefit to the
residents.
Gray said without additional traffic such as would be provided with the
development the signal may not be justified.
Koenig said she understood the benefit from the zone change was less traffic
rather than additional.
Franzen said that was correct; the traffic study shows how much less traffic office
would be from commercial, as well as lights. Most importantly, the traffic is 8-5,
weekly.
Brooks asked about stacking on Top View to the entrance.
Gray said 140 feet.
Brooks asked whether this was comparable to similar projects.
Gray said ideally a little bit longer would be good,but the topography would
prohibit it. Top View is not a high traffic road.
Brooks asked whether the signal light would need to be restructured, or upgraded.
Gray said at some point it would require an upgrade; the developer would not
assist in the cost, that is only required when the project itself needs the signal.
Clinton said he liked the building and the plan; traffic is a concern as far as those
coming off Valley View onto Top View. He supports the guide plan change.
Koenig asked about the type and amount of tree removal, and the wetland credit.
Fox said three large cottonwoods would be removed; the primary tree cover was
box elder and the underbrush was buckthorn. There are no significant trees such
as oak. The property is about 60 or 70 feet from the intersection.
Gray said the pond is a public value credit.
Foote said he supported the guide plan change. He questioned whether the city
had the ability to institute a no left turn, if it was deemed necessary 2-3 years
down the road.
Gray said the city could institute the requirement if it became a problem.
Community Planning Board Minutes
December 11, 2000
Page 9
Motion by Clinton, second by Foote to close the public hearing. Motion carried,
6-0.
Motion by Brooks, second by Clinton to recommend approval of the request by
CSM Equities, LLC for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Medium
Density Residential to Office on 2.39 acres and from Regional Commercial to
Office on 4.79
V. PUBLIC MEETING
VI. MEMBERS' REPORTS
VII. CONTINUING BUSINESS
Clinton asked about the status of the Ryan site.
Franzen said they had a grading permit and are going forward with the approved plan.
VIIL NEW BUSINESS
IX. PLANNERS' REPORTS
X. ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Koenig, second by Brooks to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m.