Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission - 04/11/1983 AGENDA Eden Prairie Planning Commission Monday, April 11, 1983 0 7:30 p.m., City Hall COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman William Bearman, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett, Stan Johannes, Dennis Marhula, Ed Schuck, Hakon Torjesen STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning Kate Karnas, Planning Secretary Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA II. ELECTION OF OFFICERS III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES IV. MEMBERS REPORTS V. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. FACTORY OUTLET CENTRE, by AmCon Corporation. Request for Planned Unit Development District Review for a shopping mall, with possible variances, on 16.2 acres; Zoning from Rural to C-Regional Service on 16.2 acres; and Preliminary Platting of 27.6 acres into one lot and three outlots. Location: South of Valley View Road, west of I-494. A continued public hearing. B. DELLWOOD, by Tandem Corporation/TCF Development Corporation. Request for Zoning of 28 acres from R1-13.5 to R1-9.5 for a single family detached residential use; and Preliminary r Platting of 36 acres for single family detached development. Location: West of Dell Road, north of Duck Lake Trail . A public hearing. C. LION'S TAP. Request for Zoning of five acres from Rural to Highway Commercial for use as a restaurant. Location: North of Highway #169/212, west of County Road #4. A public meeting. D. BLUFFS EAST, the Bluffs Company. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review for mixed residential uses on 44 acres; Planned Unit Development District Review for 6 acres for 40 townhouse units; Rezoning of approximately 14 acres from RM-6.5 to R1-9.5 and 24 acres from Rural to R1-9.5; and Preliminary Plat of 44 acres for 90 single family detached units, 40 townhouse units, and outlots. Location: West of Franlo Road, South of County Road #1. A public hearing. VI. OLD BUSINESS VII. NEW BUSINESS VIII. PLANNER'S REPORT IX. ADJOURNMENT MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, April 11, 1983 City Hall, 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman William Bearman, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett, Ed Schuck, Hakon Torjesen MEMBERS ABSENT: Stan Johannes, Dennis Marhula STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning Kate Karnas, Planning Secretary Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Torjesen, to adopt the agenda as presented. Motion carried--5-0-0 II. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Positions to be filled included Chairman, Vice Chairman, and Secretary for the year 1983-84. Chairman Bearman opened nominations for Chairman. MOTION: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Torjesen, to nominate William Bearman as Chairman. There were no further nominations. Chairman Bearman closed the nominations for Chairman. Motion carried--4-0-1 (Chairman Bearman abstained) MOTION: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett, to nominate Hakon Torjesen as Vice Chairman. There were no further nominations. • Chairman Bearman closed the nominations for Vice Chairman. Motion carried--4-0-1 (Torjesen abstained) Planning Commission Minutes 2 April 11, 1983 MOTION: Motion was made by Torjesen,. seconded by Hallett, to nominate Virginia Gartner as Secretary. There were no further nominations. Chairman Bearman closed the nominations for Secretary. Motion carried--5-0-0 III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Motion was made by Schuck, seconded by Torjesen to approve the minutes of March 28, 1983, with one amendment as follows: Page 3, paragraph 7, change the word "diameter" to "height." Motion carried--4-0-1 (Gartner abstained) IV. MEMBERS REPORTS None. V. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. FACTORY OUTLET CENTRE, by AmCon Corporation. Request for Planned Unit Development District Review for a shopping mall, with possible variances, on 16.2 acres; Zoning from Rural to C-Regional Service on 16.2 acres; and Preliminary Platting of 27.6 acres into one lot and three outlots. Location: South of Valley View Road, west of I-494. A continued public hearing. Staff explained to the Commission that this item was returning for review per their direction at the March 28, 1983 meeting with respect to landscaping, screening, parking, etc. Mr. Patrick Gannon, AmCon Corporation, reviewed the changes with the Planning Commission, indicating areas where landscape material had been increased in volume and size, the revised circulation within the parking lot, and the screening of various views of the site from adjacent properties. The five-foot wide berm requested along Plaza Drive was shown. Mr. Gannon stated that the view from the Highway 5 off-ramp from I-494 was a difficult area to handle and that there would be no effective manner to screen the parking from this view. Staff concurred. Mr. Gannon also pointed out the locations of the landscaped parking islands added with this revised submission. Staff reviewed the revised landscape plan with the Commission. It Planning Commission Minutes 3 April 11 , 1983 was proposed that there be a slight rise in the berm to screen parking from Valley View Road and Plaza Drive. The sixteen rooftop mechanical units had been reduced to four units and the screening material was shown. Staff suggested that the color of the roof be the same as the screening material for the mechanical units. The developer would be required to bring samples of these two materials in for the City to review prior to building permit issuance. Regarding the landscaping, Staff recommended that there be more of a mixture of the plant materials proposed along the north side of the lot; parking lot island trees be a minimum of 3 to 3-1/2 in. caliper; larger trees be located along the south and north; the entrances to the site have larger trees; the bermed islands should have overstory trees instead of understory trees; the protected lane for directing traffic had been incorporated around the building, and required sodding and plantings. Staff suggested that one additional parking isle be closed off to increase the stacking distance at the southwest entrance. Staff pointed out that the plans had been revised to show additional green space around the building as requested. It was requested that the Honey Locust proposed for landscape stock be eliminated and replaced with a form of Ash or Maple, which would provide a more dense screening and would withstand the parking lot environment much easier than the Honey Locust. Sidewalks needed to be added at the entrances to the parking lot leading to the building. Staff then reviewed the utilities for the project and the proposed extension per the City Engineering Department recommendations. The one free-standing sign located at the northeast corner of the site should be an effective 20 ft. above the elevation of new Valley View Road adjacent to the site. Staff recommended that the exterior materials be brick, to match the other buildings in the area, and that the lighting of the site be similar in nature to the two adjacent sites of this development. Planner Enger explained that projects such as this, involving major roadways, were referred to the City's traffic consultants, BRW, for review and recommendations. In this case, the recommendation of BRW was that Plaza Drive be a four-lane road, not two-lane, as shown. The reasons for this recommendation included the fact that the Average Daily Trips on this road would range from 20-26,000. This compared to the amount of traffic currently along Highway 5. BRW had indicated that there would be the same or higher volume of traffic on Plaza Drive as was proposed for new Valley View Road. Also, there were already two entrances to Plaza Drive shown from the Factory Outlet site. In the future, there would be additional entrances onto Plaza Drive from the southwest side of the street from the remaining lots between Menard's and the proposed Factory Outlet Centre. In order to accommodate at least one lane of free- Planning Commission Minutes 4 April 11, 1983 flow traffic through the area, it would be necessary to have a four- lane road to handle the additional left turn lanes which would result in this area from the number of entrances proposed onto Plaza Drive. Based on this recommendation from the City's traffic consultants, Staff recommended that a condition #23 be added to the Staff Report of April 8, 1983 to read: "A 70 ft. right-of-way for Plaza Drive shall be platted with the site." DISCUSSION Planner Enger 'explained to the Commission that when the original Menard's project was reviewed by the Planning Commission, there had been discussion regarding the difficulty of screening the Topview neighborhood from the site. It had been determined at that time that the most effective screening would be to place a berm in the abandoned right-of-way of old Valley View Road when construction of new Valley View Road along its planned alignment was under way. The berm would be 12 feet high. Menard's, at that time, said that they would do this. Planner Enger stated that the County would be transferring the old right-of-way for the new right-of-way for Valley View Road, and, therefore, should have no objections or involvement in the construction of the berm in this location. Schuck asked what the cost of such a berm would be. Planner Enger responded that it would be approximately $25,000, if included in the construction bid for Valley View Road, per the estimates made by City Staff. This figure would include the material and sodding. Torjesen questioned whether it would be beneficial to take the additional 20 ft. of right-of-way needed for Plaza Drive from the southwest side of Plaza Drive, instead of from the Factory Outlet site. Planner Enger stated that it would leave very small lots for development, but that it would also be possible for this thin strip to be added to the adjacent property to the southwest in order to allow for the planned expansion of Menard's parking lot. Planner Enger explained that the City had not planned for Plaza Drive to handle the proposed amount of traffic, that the Ring Route had been planned to handle the capacity of traffic which would be generated from this site. However, it had been a conscious decision on the part of Menard's, when platting the land originally, to include this road. Torjesen questioned whether, upon completion of the Ring Route, this site would be as dependent upon traffic from the Menard's area. Planner Enger stated that it would not, but that it would always be dependent upon Plaza Drive as the only entrances planned to this site, and the free-standing sites to the southwest of Plaza Drive, would be from Plaza Drive. Access was not planned from new Valley View Road. Planning Commission Minutes 5 April 11, 1983 • Torjesen asked whether it would be appropriate for the City to consider a sidewalk along the west side of Plaza Drive, in addition to that planned along the east side, to allow for pedestrian transportation to the free-standing lots along that side of Plaza Drive as well. Planner Enger responded that until the uses for the small strip along the southwest side of Plaza Drive were known, it would be difficult for the City to determine whether sidewalks would, indeed, be necessary. Chairman Bearman questioned the proponents as to why they had chosen this particular site as opposed to a site near Eden Prairie Center. Mr. Jim Burkemper, AmCon Corporation, stated that their marketing research had shown that a free-standing site, separate from any other shopping center, seemed to be more appropriate for this type of use as it allowed the factory outlet shopping centers to establish their own identity. Further, the exposure received from being located adjacent to two major thoroughfares was considered a great asset for their use. Mr. Burkemper stated that it was inconclusive as to whether such uses could successfully locate in existing vacant shopping center facilities, or not. Torjesen asked Staff to review the requested variances for the project. Planner Enger stated that there were four: 1) Parking spaces required for the site per City code formulas should be 8 spaces/1,000 sq. ft., and the proponents were requesting a lower ratio. It was noted that the existing shopping centers in the City varied from 5.3 to 6.6 spaces/1,000 sq. ft. ; 2) Floor Area Ratio was requested to be slightly greater than allowed by code at 21% as opposed to Code requirements of 20%; 3) The type of building material to be used was requested to be break off concrete block and rock face block, with a painted stripe around the building on plain concrete block. Plain concrete block was not allowed by Code; and 4) Proponent was requesting a variance from the signage requirements to eliminate all individual wall signs for the tenants of the center, and replacing that with one free-standing sign of 21 by 20, to be located at the far northeast corner of the site. The variances were being requested as part of the Planned Unit Development process. Mr. George Nelson, attorney for Tom Kasperzak, a resident of the Topview neighborhood, stated that his client was concerned about the screening of this use from his property. He suggested that screening take place close to the Topview neighborhood in the vicinity proposed by Staff where old Valley View Road would be abandoned. Mr. Nelson stated that the screening would need to be extensive to avoid visual impact on his client's property. He asked that this area be reviewed in greater detail with respect to the future Valley View Road off-ramp, as well . Torjesen stated that he felt it would be important that any negotiations regarding the berming along old Valley View Road upon abandonment of the right-of-way be accomplished at the same time as the fee owner, Menard's, transfers the property. Planning Commission Minutes 6 April 11, 1983 • Mr. Burkemper stated that they, as proponents, felt that they had adequately handled the concerns of Staff and the Commission as addressed at the previous meeting. He stated that the requirements of a brick exterior, and additional right-of-way for Plaza Drive, were not known to them at the time of the last meeting. He added that he felt these were rather significant matters which should have been addressed prior to this Commission meeting. Planner Enger stated that the previous Staff Report had been an overview, not a detailed report as this one was, addressing the details of the site, such as transportation and utilities. Further, the traffic consultant had been notified of the project early in the process; however, their response had not been available prior to the time the proponents were notified of their recommendations., Chairman Bearman asked proponents if they wanted additional time to consider the recommendations of the City Staff and the traffic consultant. Proponents stated that they would prefer to move ahead to the Council . MOTION 1 : Motion was made by Torjesen, seconded by Hallett to close the public hearing. Motion carried--5-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Torjesen, seconded by Hallett, to recommend approval of the request for Planned Unit Development District Review and zoning from Rural to C-Regional Commercial Service for a shopping mall, with variances, on 16.2 acres, for AmCon Corporation, based on revised plans dated March 30, 1983, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated March 25, and April 8, 1983, with the addition of condition #23 regarding a requirement for a 70 ft. right-of-way for proposed Plaza Drive, and condition #24 regarding completion of negotiations between the fee owner of the property, the proponent, and the City as to the responsibilities, timing, etc. for the berm to be located in the abandoned right-of- way of Valley View Road to screen the Topview neighborhood. Hallett questioned what the additional cost of a brick exterior would be for this building. Staff responded that it would be approximately $150,000. Motion carried--4-1-0 (Hallett voted no) Hallett stated that he voted no as he did not feel the use of brick was necessary and that such a requirement should have been discussed with the proponent earlier in the process. Planning Commission Minutes 7 April 11, 1983 • MOTION 3: Motion was made by Torjesen, seconded by Schuck to recommend approval of the request for preliminary plat of 27.6 acres into one lot, three outlots, and road right-of-way for Plaza Drive, for AmCon Corporation, based on revised plans dated March 30, 1983, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated March 25, and April 8, 1983, and with the addition of conditions #23 and #24. Motion carried--5-0-0 B. DELLWOOD, by Tandem Corporation/TCF Development Corporation. Request for Zoning of 28 acres from R1-13.5 to R1-9.5 for a single family detached residential use; and Preliminary Platting of 36 acres for single family detached development. Location: West of Dell Road, north of Duck Lake Trail . A public hearing. Staff reviewed the request of Tandem Corporation and TCF Development Corporation for this project with the Commission. Mr. Dick Putnam, Tandem Corporation presented slides of the site for Commission review. He stated that the overall site density was 2.5 units per acre for the proposed 90 lots. Planner Enger reviewed the recommendations of the Staff Report of April 8, 1983 with the Commission. He stated that the project was subject to the Shoreland Management Ordinance requirements for lots adjacent to the creek. Staff also considered the need for a connection from this project to a future project to the north via extension of Harrogate Drive through the site to its north border to allow for circulation between the neighborhoods. The northwest area of the plat was the most likely area for the connection as the northeast area supported standing water and marsh grasses. Chairman Bearman asked if extension of Dellwood Circle had been considered to make such a link between the neighborhoods. Mr. Putnam stated that this would mean crossing an area with peat soil types 19 ft. deep; therefore, it would be costly to use this as an alternative. Mr. Putnam stated that, while they had no objection to having a sidewalk extension to the north for recreational circulation, they would prefer not to extend Harrogate Drive. He added that the slopes through which the roadway would be aligned were steep in the area to the north. Chairman Bearman questioned the affect of the Conservancy Area designation of Purgatory Creek as it pertained to this proposal . Planner Enger stated that it affected the plat from the standpoint • of requiring replacement of the trees in this area caliper inch for caliper inch for all those removed or disturbed during construction. Mr. Putnam stated that there would be no problem in amending the Planning Commission Minutes 8 April 11, 1983 platting of the proposal to meet the requirements of the Shoreland Management Ordinance with respect to setbacks. Torjesen asked if this would cause the proponents to lose a lot in the area of Lots 15 and 16. Mr. Putnam stated that one may be lost in that area, but incorporated into another area of the site. Chairman Bearman opened the public hearing and asked for comments from members of the audience. Mr. Gary Nissen, Tartan Curve, stated that he had two concerns: 1) He stated that he would be against the extension of a road through the plat to connect the neighborhoods in that he felt it would mean increased traffic through his neighborhood; and 2) He stated that he felt it was important that the recreational trail be built through the site to allow his neighborhood access to the park area to the east of the Dellwood project. Staff responded that the trail was planned to allow access to the east and to the northwest where the City had parks planned. Mr. Ken Weinzapfel, Tartan Curve, expressed concern regarding the density proposed for the site. He stated that he did not feel the R1-9.5 designation was appropriate for this area. Mr. Putnam stated that the smaller lots were located at the center of the project, not along the periphery of the site to provide transition to the adjacent properties. The lots adjacent to the existing residential areas were requested for R1-13.5 zoning. MOTION 1 • Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Schuck, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--5-0-0 MOTION 2• Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Schuck, to recommend approval of the zoning of 27 acres from R1-13.5 to R1-9.5 for single family detached homes for Tandem Corporation/TCF Development Corporation for Dellwood, based on materials and plans dated December 16, 1982, March 17, 1983, and March, 1983, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated April 8, 1983, with item 2e of said report amended to read as follows: Explore the possibilities of the continuation of Harrogate Drive to the north property line for purposes of connection of the neighborhoods and internal circulation; and item 2g of said report amended to have the sidewalk along the west side of Harrogate Drive. The Commission discussed the extension of Harrogate Drive in greater • detail . It was the consensus of the Commission that the road not be continued through this project if significant trees would be destroyed, slopes would be badly damaged, etc. Also, the location of the road should not be adjacent to the existing house at the northwest corner of the property. Planning Commission Minutes 9 April 11 , 1983 Motion carried--5-0-0 MOTION 3: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Torjesen, to recommend approval of the preliminary plat of 36 acres for 90 lots, based on materials and plans dated December 16, 1982, March 17, 1983, and March, 1983, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated April 8, 1983, subject to the changes listed for items 2e and 2g above. Motion carried--5-0-0 C. LION'S TAP. Request for Zoning of seven acres .from Rural to Highway Commercial for use as a restaurant. Location: North of Highway #169/212, west of County Road #4. A public meeting. Staff reviewed the request of Bert Noterman, owner of the Lion's Tap, for rezoning of the Lion's Tap property. Mr. Noterman gave a brief history of the development of the property as to how the use had evolved at this site. Mr. Dick Putnam, representing the Notermans, compared this use to other non-conforming uses in the City. Mr. Rick Sathre, proponent's engineer, reviewed the design of the proposed parking lot expansion with the Commission. He indicated that the slope of the driveway proposed was 8%, the slope of the parking lot was 4%. Mr. Sathre discussed the upgrading of the intersection of U. S. 169/212 and County Road #4. He presented alternatives to the Commission for review which created a 90 degree angle intersection with County Road #4 and allowed for location of parking for the site in a more level area. Mr. Sathre stated that the plans had been reviewed with Hennepin County's Transportation Department; however, the upgrading of this intersection was not high on their priority list for funding at this time. The relocation of the road to the east to form the 90 degree angle intersection would locate the road on Mr. Sever Peterson's property to the east. It would not, however, be located within the floodplain of the area. Planner Enger explained the status of the use based on the Zoning Ordinance, which would classify the restaurant as a non-conforming use. He stated that, while it was true that other non-conforming uses existed in the City, none of those mentioned by Mr. Putnam were outside of the M.U.S.A. Line (Metropolitan Urban Service Area) and were serviced by public sewer and water. This site was located far outside of the M.U.S.A. Line and had no public sewer or water. • Planner Enger stated that there were setback problems with the site, which would not be solved by rezoning. Also, if the site were to be rezoned, the City must keep in mind that the site and its land use could be changed to meet any of the types of uses allowed in the Planning Commission Minutes 10 April 11, 1983 • district to which the property would be zoned. The City would not be prudent in zoning a property without considering the potential future use of the land involved. Regarding the preservation of slopes, Planner Enger stated that this bluff area of the City presented a problem for sites such as these. The grading proposed for this use was significant in order to obtain the expansion of the parking lot requested. In addition, the soils of the slopes were of a delicate type, which would need special care for stabilization of the new grades. Chairman Bearman asked why a building permit was issued for work done in 1980 for this use, if it was non-conforming. Staff stated that the permit was issued to allow the use to conform to health and fire safety requirements. Gartner asked if it would be feasible to rezone just the small portion of the overall site which would include the building and parking area. Planner Enger said that it would. Hallett questioned the source of water for the floodplain area in the vicinity. Planner Enger responded that the floodplain was a result of the Minnesota River backing up into this area during high water times. The water backs up to the pond located at the southwest corner of the Peterson property. Chairman Bearman opened the meeting to comments and questions from members of the audience. Mr. Dean Edstrom, 10133 Eden Prairie Road, expressed concern regarding preservation of the bluffs and the deer trail running through the property. He stated that he felt that the use, since it was non-conforming, should not be allowed to expand. Mr. Sever Peterson stated that his family had lived across County Road #4 from the Tap for many years and it was their opinion that they were good neighbors in the area. He said he had spoken with many of his neighbors in the area and had been told by them that they had no objection to the expansion of the Tap. He added that he did not feel the traffic problem at the U. S. 169/212 and _ County Road #4 intersection was caused by vehicles from the Tap. Rather, it was just a busy intersection of two major roads. Torjesen stated that he lived in an area with many non-conforming uses. He stated that he did not feel the City should "push" non- conforming uses into conformity, if there were no problems with them. However, he added that he felt expansion of non-conforming uses was a different matter altogether. . Chairman Bearman stated that he questioned whether there was justification in this particular case for allowing expansion of a non-conforming use. Hallett stated that he felt the Tap was a particular type of use Planning Commission Minutes 11 April 11, 1983 that would not be as successful, if relocated. Planner Enger stated that it may be possible to allow for the expansion of the use under strict conditions per a developer's agreement on the site, which would allow for the expansion under limited conditions. Another alternative would be the suggested rezoning. Planner Enger stated that regardless of whether or not the Tap expanded, for whatever reason, the request was for rezoning of more land than would be required for the Tap. It would be inappropriate to rezone more land than necessary. Mr. Noterman stated that he felt he was making a good faith effort to comply with City requirements, and had purchased additional property in order to be in conformance with City Code. He stated that he had invested a large amount of money already into expansion plans, which would allow him to bring his use into conformance with City requirements. Also, he would have to spend more money in the future, if construction was approved. Mr. Noterman stated that the reason for the requested expansion of seating capacity was to do more business in order to pay for the expansion planning and construction work. He stated that the overall costs would total approximately $200,000 when the project was complete. • MOTION: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Torjesen, to return the proposal to the proponent and Staff with the suggestion that they work together to find a way to make Lion's Tap a bona fide use, to bring the use into conformance with City Codes, but also to limit expansion of the use. Further, that the public meeting be continued to the April 25, 1983 meeting. Schuck stated that he was convinced of the good intentions of the proponent regarding his efforts to bring the site into compliance with the Code, but based on City Code, further expansion of the non- conforming use was not allowed. Schuck questioned whether suitable alternatives were available to satisfy both the proponent and the City. Dean Edstrom stated that he did not feel the City should make a decision based on monetary needs of the proponent. He stated that he felt there was no way to change the fact that the use was non- conforming, and, therefore, not allowed to expand. Tony Noterman, attorney for Bert Noterman, stated that he had discussed the upgrading of U. S. 169/212 with the State Highway Department. He stated that he was told by them that upgrading of • the road was not within their 20 year capital improvements program. The Commission then voted on the motion. Motion carried--4-1-0 (Chairman Bearman voted no) Planning Commission Minutes 12 April 11, 1983 Chairman Bearman voted no, stating _ that he did not feel the matter should be postponed to a later date, but that a decision should have been rendered at this meeting. D. BLUFFS EAST, the Bluffs Company. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review for mixed residential uses on 44 acres; Planned Unit Development District Review for 6 acres for 40 townhouse units; Rezoning of approximately 14 acres from RM-6.5 to R1-9.5 and 24 acres from Rural to R1-9.5; and Preliminary Plat of 44 acres for 90 single family detached units, 40 townhouse units, and outlots. Location: West of Franlo Road, South of County Road #1 . A public hearing. Staff presented petitioner's request for the Bluffs East proposal . Mr. Wally Hustad explained the history of the request from previous years and showed how this proposal fit into the overall Bluffs PUD. Ms. Susan Hustad explained the housing units to be built on the site and presented a plan which met the Staff's recommendation for not allowing the same type of unit to be located directly or adjacent or diagonally across from each other in order to provide a varied look to the subdivision. She stated that no more than three units of the same type, such as garage front, would be located in a row, also per iStaff recommendation. Mr. Richard Zedlik reviewed the multiple area of the site and presented graphics of the types of units which would be built in this vicinity. He stated that the price range would be $65-75,000 for each unit. Planner Enger reviewed the recommendations of the Staff Report of April 8, 1983 with the Commission. He stated that Outlots D and E should not be rezoned at this time in that the plans for these outlots had not be shown. The storm water drainage was reviewed by Staff. There were considerations involving storage of some of the water from this site on an adjacent property owner's land, which would need to be resolved prior to further action by the City. Also, calculations were needed regarding the capacity of the "sink hole" on property to the south of this proposal, but also owned by the proponent, in order to finalize design of the storm water system for this project. Franlo Road would be improved and realigned with its intersection with County Road #1 with this development. Mr. Hustad stated that the price ranges for the homes to be located on the R1-9.5 lots were $70-90,000. Chairman Bearman reviewed a letter from Mr. Robert McDonald, adjacent property owner to the east, in which he stated concern for future access to his property based on this development. Planner Enger stated that it was more likely that the McDonald property Planning Commission Minutes 13 April 11, 1983 • would obtain access from the west from Blossom Road. The letter would be made part of the official record of the proposal . Planner Enger stated that there was a lack of transition between the proposed multiple development and the properties to the south and east of the multiple. Due to this major consideration involving land use, Staff was recommending that the multiple portion of the proposal be returned to the proponent for revision. Torjesen stated that he had noted that the grading plan showed the entire site graded, including the outlots. He questioned whether it was appropriate to have this area graded at this time, if the City would not be acting on it now. Planner Enger stated that, as a practical matter, it would be better to grade the entire street, instead of half of a street; therefore, the grading plan for the entire area was shown by the proponent. Mr. Zedlik stated that he was against the recommendation of the Staff for 200 ft. radii for the curves to be located in the street through the multiple area. Planner Enger stated that it was a matter of safety based on the speed of traffic to be allowed through this area. Torjesen questioned the source of the 200 ft. radius requirement. • Staff responded that it was a requirement of the City Engineer design standards for the City. MOTION 1 : Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Schuck, to close the public hearing for Planned Unit Development Concept and preliminary platting of 38 acres of land for single family lots. Motion carried--5-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Schuck, to recommend approval of the request of the Bluffs Company for Planned Unit Development Concept for mixed residential land use on 44 acres, based on plans and written materials dated February, 1983, March 1, 1983, and revised. plans dated April 11, 1983, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated April 8, 1983. Motion carried--5-0-0 MOTION 3: • Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Schuck, to continue the public hearing on the Planned Unit Development District Review and preliminary platting of the 6 acre site for 40 townhouse units, and return the proposal to the proponent for revision. Planning Commission Minutes 14 April 11, 1983 Motion carried--5-0-0 MOTION 4: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Schuck, to recommend zoning of approximately 27 acres from RM-6.5 and Rural to R1-9.5 and R1- 13.5 for the Bluffs Company, based on plans and written materials dated February, 1983, March- 1, 1983, and revised plans dated April 11, 1983, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated April 8, 1983. Motion carried--5-0-0 MOTION 5: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Schuck, to recommend approval of the preliminary plat of 38 acres for 90 single family lots, and Outlots D and E for future single family lots, based on plans and written materials dated February, 1983, March 1, 1983, and revised plans dated April 11, 1983, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated April 8, 1983. VI. OLD BUSINESS • None. VII. NEW BUSINESS None. VIII. PLANNER'S REPORT None. IX. ADJOURNMENT MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Torjesen, seconded by Hallett. Chairman Bearman adjourned the meeting at 1 :15 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Kate Karnas Planning Secretary