Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission - 09/25/1989 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 25, 1989 7:30 p.m. COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairperson Julianne Bye, Richard Anderson, Tim Bauer, Christine Dodge, Robert Hallett, Charles Ruebling, Douglas Sandstad STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Don Uram, Assistant Planner; Deb Edlund, Recording Secretary Pledge of Allegiance -- Roll Call I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA II. MEMBERS REPORTS III. MINUTES IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS *NOTE: THE TIMES LISTED BELOW ARE TENTATIVE, AND MAY BE SIGNIFICANTLY EARLIER, OR LATER THAN LISTED. (7:35) A. TECH 10, by Hoyt Development Company. Request for Zoning District Change, from Rural to I-2 on 5.6 acres, Preliminary Plat of 5.6 acres into one lot, Site Plan Review of 5.6 acres for construction of a 73,367 square foot office warehouse. Location: 74th Street and Golden Triangle Drive. A continued public hearing. (7:45) B. PUBLIC STORAGE, by Public Storage, Inc. Request for Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Office on 1.09 acres and from Low Density Residential to Neighborhood Commercial on 1.09 acres and from Low Density Residential to Industrial on 3.10 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to Office on 1.09 acres, and from Rural to Neighborhood Commercial on 1.09 acres and from Rural to I-2 on 3.10 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Preliminary Plat of 5.28 acres into 3 lots and road right-of-way, Site Plan Review on 5.28 acres for construction of 54,137 square feet of office, commercial , and industrial land uses. Location: West of County Road #18, south of the Preserve Village Mall . A public hearing. (8:45) C. SANDY POINTE, Sandy Pointe Partnership. Request for Zoning District Chance from Rural to R1-22 on 6.0 acres, Preliminary Plat 11.2 acres into 13 single family lots, 2 outlots, and road right-of-way. Location: East and west of Corral Lane, south of Red Rock Lake. A public hearing. (9:45) D. MOORHEAD ADDITION, Transtar, Inc. Request for Zoning District Change from R1-22 to R1-13.5 on 1.77 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Preliminary Plat of 1.77 acres into 4 single family lots, 2 outlots, and road right-of-way. Location: 9969 Bennett Place. A public hearing. V. OLD BUSINESS VI. NEW BUSINESS VII. PLANNER'S REPORT VIII. ADJOURNMENT • PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 1989 7: 30 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7600 Executive Drive COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Julianne Bye, Richard Anderson, Tim Bauer, Christine Dodge, Robert Hallett, Doug Sandstad COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Charles Ruebling STAFF MEMBERS : Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Deb Edlund, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE I . APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION:. Sandstad moved, seconded by Dodge to approve the Agenda as published . Motion carried 4-0-0 . II . MEMBERS REPORTS • Tim Bauer was sworn into office by Senior Planner, Mike Franzen. III . MINUTES 1. Minutes of the August 28 1989 Planning Commission Meeting. 2. Minutes of the September 11 1989 Planning Commission Meeti,n . The Minutes were postponed until later in the meeting when Anderson and Hallett would be present . IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. TECH 10, by Hoyt Development Company. Request for Zoning District Change, from Rural to I-2 on 5. 6 acres, Preliminary Plat of 5. 6 acres into one lot, Site Plan Review of 5. 6 acres for construction of a 73, 367 square foot office warehouse . Location: 74th Street and Golden Triangle Drive. Bob Smith, representing the proponent, stated that two issues were left to be resolved from the discussions at the last Planning Commission meeting. Proof of parking would be entirely on the Tech 10 site, located at the northwest corner . The original plan had proposed proof of Planning Commission Minutes 2 September 25, 1989 parking to be on the property located to the south of TECH 10 . The other unresolved issue was the number of caliper inches of trees to be replaced. The proponent 's revised plan would be to plant 520 caliper inches of trees on the TECH 10 site and place the remaining balance of the trees would be placed on the TECH 9 site . The total tree replacement would be approximately 813 caliper inches . The natural plantings along the western boundary would remain in place . A row of 10 foot evergreens would be utilized to screen the loading docks on the northern end of the building. Franzen reported that the main concern had been the tree replacement and screening of the loading docks . The tree replacement per the revised proposal would now be consistent with the City's policy and the double row of 10 foot conifers would provide adequate screening for the loading area at the northern end of the building. Franzen stated that Staff recommended approval of the project based on the revised plans and the recommendations outlined in the Staff report dated September 22, 1989 . Herleiv Helle, 6138 Artic Way, Edina, presented slides which showed previous projects by Hoyt Development which did not have the loading docks adequately screened . Helle was concerned about what guarantees he could expect that the proposed project would be screened as presented by the proponent. Helle believed that the plan would be better if the loading docks faced one another and the building turned in the opposite direction. Helle was concerned that his property to the north would have to be sold as a warehouse facility also if the Hoyt facility was not properly screened . Helle stated that interest had been expressed to develop his property as a corporate headquarters . Bye stated that Mr . Helle had raised legitimate questions. Bye explained to Helle that seven years ago when the project presented in the slides had been developed the City did not have a landscaping ordinance and Tree Preservation Policy that were currently in place . Franzen stated the Landscape Ordinance required that loading facilities be screened from the roadways and the wetland areas . He added that the loading areas could not face Golden Triangle Drive . Franzen stated that the proponent had presented an acceptable plan with adequate screening according to City code . A security bond or a letter of credit was required equal to 150% of the cost. Franzen stated that the bond was not released until the following growing season. Planning Commission Minutes 3 September 25, 1989 • MOTION 1: Dodge moved, seconded by Bauer to close the public hearing. Motion carried 4-0-0 . MOTION 2• Dodge moved, seconded by Bauer to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Hoyt Development Company for Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 and Site Plan Review on 5 . 6 acres for construction of a 73, 367 square foot office/warehouse, to be known as Tech 10, based on revised plans dated September 21, 1989, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated September 8 and 22, 1989 . Motion carried 3-0-1 . Sandstad abstained. MOTION 3` Dodge moved, seconded by Bauer to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Hoyt Development Company for Preliminary Plat of 5. 6 acres into one lot for construction of a 73, 367 square foot office/warehouse, to be known as Tech 10, based on revised plans dated September 21, 1989, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated September 8 and 22, 1989 . Motion . carried 3-0-1 . Sandstad abstained . B. PUBLIC STORAGE, by Public Storage, Inc. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Office on 1. 09 acres and from Low Density Residential to Neighborhood Commercial on 1 . 09 acres, and from Low Density Residential to Industrial on 3 . 10 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to Office on 1 . 09 acres, and from Rural to Neighborhood Commercial on 1. 09 acres, and from Rural to I-2 on 3 .10 acres, with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Preliminary Plat of 5. 38 acres into three lots and road right-of-way, Site Plan Review on 5. 38 acres for construction of 54,137 square feet of office, commercial, and industrial land uses . Franzen reported that a smaller version of this same project had been before the Planning Commission approximately a year ago. Peter Beck, representing the proponent, stated that the project was a multiple use project consisting of a self- storage facility, which had changed significantly from the project presented last year, a small office complex, and a daycare facility. Beck said that Public Storage was the largest developer of self-storage in the world . The • building standards would be of the highest quality for everything from the building material to the security system. Beck believed that the plan had significantly Planning Commission Minutes 4 September 25, 1989 improved from last year 's version because of the new isintegrated use for the entire five lots along Highway 18 . The control of all five lots would also allow the proponent better control of the accesses . . The size of the self-storage had been reduced and no variances would now be required for density. Beck stated that the proponent would comply with the I-2 Zoning District. Some of the space allowed for the self-storage would be converted to office space . The setbacks provided to the west and north had been increased. Beck stated that the closest home was 90 to 100 feet from the storage buildings . The only fencing used would be to provided screening between the storage building and the residential homes . Beck noted that in Eden Prairie the public storage facility required Industrial Zoning; however, in other communities this was not the case. Public Storage currently had facilities in Burnsville, Golden Valley, and Coon Rapids . Public Storage had persued the project because of the market demand in Eden Prairie . Beck stated that the proponent found all the Staff recommendations acceptable with the exception of Item 1, that the base area ratio should be reduced. The exterior materials for all the buildings would match. Beck stated that the proponent would have preferred to have the project done on a PUD concept; however, there was not enough land available . The daycare facility would adhere to the City Code . The proponent would fine tune the landscape plan according to the Staff recommendations. The air conditioning units would be placed inside if possible. The sewer could possibly need to be moved . Beck stated that the proponent was willing to take the time to do the project right. Beck did not believe that it would be economically feasible to lose any more of the area of the public storage facility. He added that a third floor would not be desirable for the renters of the space or for the adjacent residents . Beck did not believe that the removal of the area would have a significant impact on the neighbors . The perimeter buildings on the east could not be reduced in size . Beck believed that the combined mix of uses met the needs of area residents . The project was surrounded on three sides by residential homes; however, it would not be economically feasible to have these five lots developed as single family because access to utilities was not available and the street access onto County Road 18 would be difficult and undesirable . Beck did not believe that all office use of this site would be desirable because of the significant impact on the traffic levels, especially at the AM and PM peak hours . Beck stated that the building appeared to be large, but would the public • storage would generate very little traffic, especially in the peak hours . Beck concluded by asking the Planning Commission for direction as to whether it believed that Planning Commission Minutes 5 September 25, 1989 • this project would make sense for this site . Don Jensen, representing the proponent, presented plans which depicted the existing homes and noted those homes protected by the proposed covenants . A 16 foot grade allowed for the development of a split level self-storage facility. The existing hedges would also remain in place . Jensen did not believe that the residents would be able to observe the daily operations of the facility because of the screening provided by the actual buildings . There would be approximately 85 to 40 feet from the hard surface area to the adjacent property lines . Forty percent of the project would be land, forty percent pavement, and twenty percent building area. The pitched roofs on all of the buildings would help screen the view and would blend in well with the residential neighborhood. The hours of operation for the self-storage would be from 9 AM to 8 PM. Security would be provided by downcast lighting and a control gate. Jensen believed that the self-storage would be a good transitional use . The office building would front Highway 18 . The project would generate approximately 60 trips per day if 900 occupied. The office facility and the daycare would share a parking area. The caretakers for the self-storage would live on- site . Jensen noted that the self-storage facility in Golden Valley was close to a residential area and was • working well . The largest building would be a the lower level . Jensen believed that adequate screening had been provided. Franzen reported that the key issues for the Planning Commission's consideration was the change in the Comprehensive Guide Plan, was this an appropriate land use and if so how the land use should perform, and if the impact to the adjacent neighborhood had been mitigated. Franzen noted that alternative uses for consideration would be low density residential and office use . He added that office uses had been developed next to residential areas in other areas of Eden Prairie . The major revision requested by Staff was the reduction in the Base Area Ratio which would reduce the visual impact of the project. Franzen did not believe that variances should be considered in a transitional area. Franzen stated that it was possible that todays market would not support low density residential development; however, the Planning Staff did not deal with the economics of projects . Franzen noted that covenants on properties were only effective for as along as the current owner occupied the land or facility. Franzen questioned whether a market study had been done to conclude that a public storage facility was in demand for Eden Prairie since over 75, 000 square feet of mini storage was approved 2 years ago and has not been built. Franzen stated that Staff was concerned about the total building mass of the entire Planning Commission Minutes 6 September 25, 1989 • project and also about the right-in, right-out access proposed. Franzen reviewed the Staff recommendations presented in the September 22, 1989 Staff Report . Anderson stated that the project was an attractive one; however, he believed that it belonged in an industrial area. Anderson was concerned about the noise level for the project . Anderson did not believe that a compelling reason for a Comprehensive Guide Plan Change had been presented. Bauer asked Beck to clearly state the compelling reasons for the Guide Plan Change as he did not feel that this had been addressed. Beck replied that the development of this land had been left without utilities and access to the City street. Beck added that single family development would not be able to bear the expense to provide the utilities and the street access. The high traffic of County Road 18 did not provide an acceptable environment for single family residences . David Oliver, 9661 Clark Circle, stated that he was concerned about the impact to the residents from the security lighting and the access onto County Road 18. Oliver recommended that any project for this site be delayed until County Road 18 was revised . He believed • that utilities could be brought into the area when the frontage road was constructed. Oliver would prefer that the site remain low-density residential and believed that the project was before its time . Jan Raushel, 9691 Clark Circle, stated that she lived on the top of the hill and would be able to view all of the activity of the Public Storage facility. Raushel was concerned about the additional traffic for County Road 18 . Raushel stated that they already contended with noise and lighting from the mall and did not want to have same problems from this direction. Raushel believed that other sites in Eden Prairie would be more suitable for this development. Jan Court, 9485 Garrison Way, believed that the area should be left undeveloped until the issues surrounding County Road 18 had been decided . She stated that she would be viewing the rooftops of the units . Court believed that the property values of the residential homes in the area would decrease if the development was allowed to proceed. Bruce Davis, 9652 Clark Circle, concurred with the opinions already presented by his fellow neighbors and added that he too was in opposition to the project. Norm Ziesman, 9425 Garrison Way, did not believe that this Planning commission Minutes 7 September 25, 1989 should become an economic issue . Ziesman believed that the property should be sold as it was currently guided; however, if the Planning Commission did believe that a Guide Plan Change were appropriate, he would prefer the Public Storage as a neighbor versus other possible uses . Ziesman was concerned about the size of the buildings and also if outside storage would be used . Beck replied that no outside storage was planned for the site . Ziesman believed that the wording related to the lighting should be reworded to read: lighting be below the roof line . Ziesman questioned the noise levels related to the hours of use and its impact on the adjacent residents . Ziesman believed that the first and most important issue to be addressed should be the request for the change in the Comprehensive Guide Plan. Jane Lakowski, 9445 Garrison Way, stated that she would be looking at 224 feet of roof line and their living area faced the back of this project. Lakowski did not believe that the time had come to have industrial use adjacent to residential homes . Lakowski was concerned about the cars driving in and out of the site at night. Bye stated that sight lines were important; however, the first issue to be decided would be if a Comprehensive Guide Plan change had been substantiated. • Hallett stated that this was a remnant piece of land, which made development of the property more difficult. He concurred with the developer that the property would probably not be developed as single family homes; however, he was not convinced that this project was the appropriate use either . Hallett added that he would be open to a change in the Comprehensive Guide Plan for this site, but not necessarily for this project. Hallett supported that Staff recommendation to reduce the Base Area Ratio. Anderson believed that if the market demanded that the hours of operation change they would change and was concerned about the impact on the adjacent residents if this were to occur . Anderson believed that if the frontage road for County Road 18 did develop that this property could be developed as multiple-residential, which he believed would be of less impact to the adjacent properties . Anderson did not believe that the proponent had presented compelling reasons for a Comprehensive Guide Plan Change . Bye stated that this was a transitional area and did not believe this particular use to be the best for the site . Bye wanted to provide stability for the neighborhood. . Sandstad concurred that compelling reasons had not been presented to justify the Comprehensive Guide Plan change . Planning Commission Minutes 8 September 25, 1989 • MOTION 1• Anderson moved, seconded by Sandstad to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried 6-0-0. MOTION 2 : Anderson moved, seconded by Sandstad to recommend to the City Council denial of the request of Public Storage Inc. for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Office, Neighborhood Commercial, and Industrial for office, daycare, and mini-storage uses, based on plans dated September 18, 1989, and the following findings : 1. Developer has not provided substantiation for the proposed change and the proposed change is inconsistent with the existing surrounding areas . 2 . An effective transition to the adjoining single family uses has not been accomplished in order to mitigate the impacts of higher intensity uses . 3. The site plan, as proposed, is inconsistent with the guidelines of the Site Plan Review Ordinance requirements of Chapter 11, City Code . 4 . The proposed development does not meet the landscape requirements for screening of parking areas . . 5. The proposed development does not meet City Code requirements for exterior materials for the daycare facility. Motion carried 6-0-0 . MOTION 3 • Anderson moved, seconded by Bauer to recommend to the City Council denial of the request of Public Storage Inc. for Zoning District Change from Rural to Office, Neighborhood Commercial, and I-2, with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals. Motion carried 6-0-0 . MOTION 4• Anderson moved, seconded by Bauer to recommend to the City Council denial of the request of Public .Storage Inc. for Preliminary Plat of 5. 38 acres into three lots and road right-of-way. Motion carried 6-0-0 . MOTION 5• Anderson moved, seconded by Bauer to recommend to the City Council denial of the request for a Site Plan Review on • 5. 38 acres for construction of 54,137 square feet of office, commercial, and industrial land uses . Motion carried 6-0-0 . Planning Commission Minutes 9 September 25, 1989 • C. SANDY POINTE, by Sandy Pointe Partnership. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-22 on 6 . 0 acres, Preliminary Plat of 11. 2 acres into 13 single family lots, two outlots, and road right-of-way. Location: East and west of Corral Lane, south of Red Rock Lake . Bob Smith, representing the proponent, stated that Lot 27 on the west side of Corral Lane was presently zoned R1-22 and the parcel to the east of Corral Lane was zoned Rural . Lot 28 was a recreational lot for the Eden Hills subdivision. Lot 27 was exempt from the covenants of the Eden Hills subdivision. The proponent had investigated three possible road alignments; 1) leaving Corral Lane in its present location to allow the development of 6 lots on the west side, 1 lot on the peninsula, and 6 lots on a cul-de-sac, 2 ) Corral Lane would be moved to the western border of the property allowing the development of 7 lakeshore lots, or 3) the connection between Corral Lane and Mitchell Road as per the Staff recommendation. The project was design for 13 lots at 1.1 units per acre. The lot sizes and widths would be equivalent to that of the Eden Hills development. Two of the lakeshore lots would not meet the 70-foot building pad sizes, the plan proposed 50-foot pads. Trees would not be removed along the lakeshore; however, some trees in the southern portion of the parcel would be removed. • Sandstad asked Smith if the two lots on the west side of the road would have any recreational space due to the steep grade for the rear yards . Smith replied that there would be an opportunity for retaining walls and terracing to be used on these lots . Sandstad then asked if the slope would be 3-to-1 . Smith replied yes and added that there was a swail which discharged the water around the site . Franzen reported that transition to the existing Eden Hills subdivision was a key issue . Staff recommended the proponent reduce the project by 1 lot by combining lots 1 and 2 . The plans should be revised to eliminate the connection from Corral Lane to Sandy Point Road or design Corral Lane as a one-way street with a median at Sandy Pointe Road. Final Plat approval and 2nd Reading should not occur until the contract for Mitchell Lake has been awarded. Anderson asked if Staff was concerned about the 50-foot building pads along the lakeshore . Franzen believed that based on the dimensions of the two lots the proponent would probably construct a longer and narrower home on these sites. Anderson then asked if decks could be built . on the lots . Franzen replied that the print only showed a possible footprint; however, decks would not be allowed because of the easement on the lots . Anderson asked if Planning Commission Minutes 10 September 25, 1989 any sidewalk or trail system was proposed . Smith replied that a sidewalk was proposed along the east side of Corral Lane and 8-foot bituminous trail along Mitchell Road. Ed Martin, 15810 Cedar Ridge Road, President of the Eden Hills Homeowners ' Association, stated that the neighbors were not opposed to the development of the neighborhood; however, they would request the rejection of the plan as proposed. Martin believed the density of the project was too high and questioned if the plan as designed was compatible with the adjacent lots . Lots 1, 2, and 3 were barely 22, 000 square feet and abutted lots which were over one acre. The position of lots 1 and 2 would require an 8-foot cut in grade, which would create a hardship for the lots in the Eden Hills subdivision. The alignment of Corral Lane should remain as platted currently. Corral Lane currently acts as a natural barrier for the lake. Martin believed that Eden Prairie needed more green space and proposed that only 2-to-3 homes be developed in Lot 27 . The neighbors would prefer that access to the new development be from Mitchell Road and that the cul-de-sac remain closed. Martin believed that opening the cul-de- sac would encourage short-cuts from Mitchell Road to County Road #4 . Alan Jarman, 15710 Corral Lane, stated that the neighborhood of Eden Hills was a quite neighborhood and believed that the new development would increase the traffic . Jarman was concerned for the safety of the children in the neighborhood with the traffic increase . Jarman did not believe that a directional island would help decrease the traffic. Mike Junck, 15702 Cedar Ridge Road, stated that he lived adjacent to Lot 27 and concurred with the recommendation to by Martin to limit the development to only 2-to-3 homes on Lot 27 . Junck was concerned that his lakeview would be taken away. Floyd Hagen, 15802 Cedar Ridge Road, stated that the recreational area was protected by covenants and had always been considered as part of the neighborhood. Hagen was concerned about the density of the project and the impact of 2-to-3 story homes in these locations . Hagen was also concerned about the increase in traffic . Hagen questioned how the use of the beach area could continue to be restricted . Hagen was concerned that the Homeowners ' Association members would now be cutoff from easy access to the recreational lot. David Newman, 6959 Tartan Lane, believed that this project • would impact his property, even though the development was not adjacent to his property. Newman questioned the impact a zoning change would have on the need for Planning Commission Minutes 11 September 25, 1989 . additional City services, the impact on property taxes, the impact on the current inventory of existing homes, and the affect on current sales and pricing of existing homes in the area. Newman believed that this item should be tabled until answers to these questions could be obtained . Virginia Gartner, 15701 Cedar Ridge Road, stated that Lot 27 was actually flat and sloped to the lake . Gartner believed that the plans which showed a steep slope on the two lots to the west of Corral Lane were deceptive . Gartner believed that the density of the project was too high. Smith believed that the lot values and home values would provide a transition. The value of the homes would be approximately $300, 000 . Smith stated that the beach would remain a private beach. Smith noted that Lot 27 was currently zoned for R1-22 development . The two lots to the west of Corral Lane could have retaining walls built as the area above this was the flat area referred to by Mrs . Gartner . Sandstad stated that he would not be in favor of the cul- de-sac without a connection between Corral Drive and Mitchell Road. Martin stated that the neighbors were willing to drive around to County Road #4 to gain access to the recreational area and preferred the closed cul-de-sac. Hallett stated that he believed that the project was too crowded; however, he did not believe that only 2 or 3 lots was reasonable . Hallett believed that the proponent should be more sensitive to the concerns of the existing neighbors . Bye stated that the road as proposed by the proponent would act as a transition. Anderson stated that the neighbors seemed to be more concerned about the visual impact of the project, rather than transition. Hallett did not believe that legitimate reasons for denial of the project had been presented . Hallett asked if the lots on the west side of Corral Lane could be kept at the present R1-22 zoning. Franzen replied yes. Sandstad believed that if the plan was reduced by 1 lot as recommended it would be more acceptable . Bye asked what help could be given to protect the view of the existing homes . Franzen replied that if the covenant restricted the development of only 1-story homes it would Planning Commission Minutes 12 September 25, 1989 be the responsibility of the property owner to enforce the covenant . Smith replied that the existing homes were 60 feet higher than the proposed homes and that a 2-story home would be approximately 20 feet in height, which should not restrict the view of the lake . Junck stated that he was concerned about the view being blocked by the proposed location of the corner home on the peninsula. Martin stated that he would like to readdress some of the issues raised tonight with the Association members . Smith noted that the layout as proposed met all ordinances . Anderson stated that he would like to see continued cooperation between the neighborhood and the proponent to work out a reasonable solution. Smith stated that two neighborhood meetings had already been conducted . Smith further recommended that the proposal be considered as presented with the removal of 1 lot . Bye stated that she would like to have Public Safety review the road alignment issues . Smith stated that Public Safety had referred the matter back to Planning Staff . Martin stated that the neighborhood wanted to live with the 1300 foot cul-de-sac and did not understand the need to change this . Jim Zachman, the developer, stated that he did not want to make the connection to Mitchell Road and had proposed the one-way as an alternative . Zachman stated that the expense of making the connection to Mitchell Road would need to be offset by the construction of higher priced homes on the site . Zachman added that he was in agreement with the neighborhood that the connection to Mitchell Road should not be made . Sandstad believed that the proposal should be developed as planned with the elimination of 1 lot as recommended by Staff . Sandstad believed that the connection should be made to Mitchell Road. Zachman stated that the road alignment had been discussed in depth. To make the connection to Mitchell Road it would require the development of $300,000 homes to cover the costs of the connection . Zachman stated that he wanted to have the right to develop the property without disturbing the existing neighborhood . . Bye stated that she could support the cul-de-sac proposal with a walkway. Franzen recommended the consideration of the cul-de-sac with knock-down barriers . Bye believed Planning Commission Minutes 13 September 25, 1989 that the character of the existing neighborhood should be protected. MOTION 1 • Sandstad moved, seconded by Anderson to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0-0 . MOTION 2 • Dodge moved, seconded by Bauer to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Sandy Pointe Partnership for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-22 on 6 . 0 acres for single family residential development to be known as Sandy Pointe, based on plans dated September 22, 1989, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated September 22, 1989 with the clarification that Corral Lane end at Lot 27 and that 1 lot of Lots 1 and 2 be removed. Motion carried 6-0-0 . MOTION 3 : Dodge moved, seconded by Bauer to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Sandy Pointe Partnership for Preliminary Plat of 11 . 2 acres into 12 single family lots, two outlots and road right-of-way, for • residential development to be known as Sandy Pointe, based on plans based on plans dated September 22, 1989, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated September 22, 1989 with the clarification that Corral Lane end at Lot 27 and that 1 lot of Lots 1 and 2 be removed. Motion carried 6-0-0 . D. MOOREHEAD. Request for Zoning District Change from R1-22 to R1-13 . 5 on 1 . 77 acres, with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Preliminary Plat of 1.77 acres into four single family lots, two outlots, and road right-of- way. Location: 9969 Bennett Place . Bob Smith, representing the proponent, presented that plans for the development of 4 lots on 1 . 77 acres, which would consist of the existing home with the addition of 3 new homes . Land would be dedicated for a portion of the cul-de-sac. A variance would be necessary for street frontage on Lot #4 . Smith noted that Staff had recommended that access to Lot 4 be provided through a driveway until the property to the south would be developed, at which time a City street would be constructed. Sandstad asked if the Johnson's had been contacted regarding the proposal for a cul-de-sac . Franzen replied that the proponent was looking at an interim situation. Franzen reported that tree loss was approximately 34% for Planning Commission Minutes 14 September 25, 1989 the project. Staff was recommending that the driveway run from north to south to save additional trees . The proponent would be required to enter into a special assessment agreement for Lot 4 to cover the construction costs of the street, utilities, and storm drainage at the time the property to the south was developed and a City street was required. Franzen stated that a variance would be required for the existing lots for street frontage . Anderson asked if Johnson would be responsible to construct the street. Smith proposed an easement be provided. Randy Stoneman, 9947 Bennet Place, stated that he was concerned about the drainage . He noted that the elevation of his property was 861 and added that any extra fill placed incorrectly would divert the water and trap it on his property. Franzen replied that the proponent would be required to post a bond at the time of grading. Viktor Jegers, 9948 Windsor Terrace, requested that the grading not take place on the back of his property. He also added that he was not interested in purchasing the triangular section of property presented to him by the proponent. • Johnson stated that he did not have any objection to the project unless it would cost him money to construct the roadway. Tom Gambucci stated that the area next to the residents could be protected from the grading necessary. MOTION 1: Dodge moved, seconded by Bauer to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0-0. MOTION 2 • Dodge moved, seconded by Bauer to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Transtar, Inc. for Zoning District Change from R1-22 to R1-13 . 5 on 1. 77 acres for single family residential development to be known as the Moorhead Addition, with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, based on plans dated September 21, 1989, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated September 22, 1989 with the addition that necessary steps be taken to keep the grading onsite . Motion carried 6-0-0. • Planning Commission Minutes 15 September 25, 1989 MOTION 3 : Dodge moved, seconded by Bauer to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Transtar, Inc. , for Preliminary Plat of 1. 77 acres into four single family lots, two outlots, and road right-of-way for single family residential development to be known as the Moorhead Addition, based on plans dated September 21, 1989, subject tot he conditions of the Staff Report dated September 22, 1989 with the addition that necessary steps be taken to keep the grading onsite . Motion carried 6-0-0 . V. OLD BUSINESS MOTION• Hallett moved, seconded by Anderson to approve the Minutes of the August 28, 1989 Planning Commission meeting as published . Motion carried 4-0-2 . Dodge and Bauer abstained. MOTION• Sandstad moved, seconded by Hallett to approve the Minutes of the September 11, 1989 Planning Commission meeting with the following correction: • Page 8, Paragraph 7, Sentence 2, should read: Patton replied that they would not agree to an extension. Motion carried 3-0-3 . Anderson, Dodge, and Bauer abstained . VI . NEW BUSINESS VII . PLANNER'S REPORT VIII . ADJOURNMENT MOTION• Anderson moved, seconded by Hallett to adjourn the meeting at 10 : 05 PM. Motion carried 6-0-0.