Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission - 08/13/1984 AGENDA Monday, August 13, 1984 School Board Meeting Room 7:30 p.m. COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman William Bearman, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett, Stan Johannes, Dennis Marhula, Ed Schuck, Hakon Torjesen STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner; Kate Karnas, Recording Secretary Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA II. MEMBERS REPORTS III. MINUTES A. July 9, 1984 B. July 23, 1984 IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS ( 7:40) A. BLUFFS WEST 3RD ADDITION, by The Bluffs Company. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 for approximately three acres and Preliminary Plat of 14.3 acres into 20 single family lots. Location: North of Burr Ridge Lane, south of Purgatory Creek. A continued public hearing. ( 8:00) B. BLUFFS WEST 5TH ADDITION, by the Bluffs Company. Request for Zoning District Change from R1-22 to R1-13.5 for 14.5 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 14.5 acres into 32 single family lots. Location: South of Riverview Road, east of West Riverview Drive. A continued public hearing. ( 8:30) C. LANDMARK WEST, by Landmark Northwest, Inc. Request for Comprehen- sive Guide Plan Amendment from Office to Commercial ; Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment; Zoning District Change from Rural to Neighborhood Commercial (with variances for the Board of Appeals), and Preliminary Plat of 7.29 acres for service uses (retail, 200- seat restaurant, health club, fast food restaurant, and gas station/convenience store). Location: Southeast corner of Shady Oak Road and City West Parkway. A continued public hearing. ( 9:30) D. TREANOR ADDITION, by Guy K. Treanor. Request for Preliminary Plat of 0.734 acres into two lots for residential development. Location: 16135 Valley View Road. A public hearing. Agenda gust 13, 1984 ge 2 (10:15) E. BLUFFS EAST 3RD ADDITION, by the Bluffs Company. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 for 9.63 acres, and Preliminary Plat of approximately 9.63 acres for 29 single family lots. Location: West of Franlo Road, South of Lee Drive. A public hearing. (10:30) F. VALLEY LAKE BUSINESS CENTER, by GSB Investments. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential and Undesignated to Industrial ; Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 for 4.4 acres for a 50,000 sq. ft. office/industrial building (with variances for the Board of Appeals) ; and Preliminary Plat of 10.63 acres into one lot and one outlot. Location: West of Prairie Center Drive, south of Valley View Road, along the northwest shore of Smetana Lake. A public hearing. V. NEW BUSINESS A. Flying Cloud Airport Commission Proposed Signage Ordinance VI. OLD BUSINESS VII. PLANNER'S REPORT IIII. ADJOURNMENT Note: The times listed above are tentative--the item may be significantly earlier, or later than shown. MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, August 13, 1984 School Board Meeting Room 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman William Bearman, Robert Hallett, Stan Johannes, Dennis Marhula, Hakon Torjesen MEMBERS ABSENT: Virginia Gartner, Ed Schuck STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Kate Karnas, Recording Secretary Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Hallett, to approve the agenda as printed. Motion carried--5-0-0 II. MEMBERS REPORTS None. III. MINUTES A. July 9, 1984 MOTION: Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Torjesen, to adopt the minutes of the July 9, 1984, Planning Commission meeting as printed. Motion carried--3-0-2 (Hallett and Johannes abstained) B. July 23, 1984 MOTION: Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Johannes, to adopt the minutes of the July 23, 1984, Planning Commission meeting, with the following addition: Page 6, paragraph 6, under Shady Oak Ridge, add to the beginning of the paragraph, "Torjesen stated that he favored the overall site plan, and that he felt the natural features had been treated sensitively; however, he had one overriding concern." Motion carried--4-0-1 (Hallett abstained) Planning Commission Minutes 2 August 13, 1984 IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. BLUFFS WEST 3RD ADDITION, by The Bluffs Company. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 for approximately three acres and Preliminary Plat of 14.3 acres into 20 single family lots. Location: North of Burr Ridge Lane, south of Purgatory Creek. A continued public hearing. Mr. Lloyd Erickson, engineer for proponent, reviewed the revised plans for this development with the Commission. He stated that approximately 200 trees, twelve inches in diameter, or greater, would be removed with road and housing construction on this site. Planner Franzen reviewed the Staff Report evaluating the revised project. Chairman Bearman asked if there had been a right-of-way established for Idlewild Drive in the past. Mr. Erickson explained that this right-of-way would be vacated with this new proposal. Marhula asked if any existing cul-de-sac right-of-way would be abandoned with this plat. Mr. Erickson responded that there would not. Marhula asked if Lot 9 of the plat was subject to review under the requirements of the Shoreland Management Ordinance. Planner Franzen stated that it was not. • Torjesen asked if any variances were being requested. Planner Franzen responded that there were not. Torjesen stated that he was concerned about other potential "pieces" of this area which may have similar problems of access, such as this project did in its original form. Mr. Wally Hustad, Jr., proponent, stated that he was not aware of any others under their control. Mr. Erwin Templin, 11311 Burr Ridge Lane, questioned the ability of the developer to provide adequate erosion control while the lots were being built. Staff responded that it had been determined that the best way to handle this would be to require individual grading plans for each lot at the time of building permit issuance, along with a bond guaranteeing proper performance by the grading contractors for each lot. Mr. Templin asked if this development would be comparable to the Deerfield development. Mr. Hustad responded that the homes would be in a similar price range to those of Deerfield. Mr. Templin added that he had spoken to the owner of Lot 8 at the east end of Burr Ridge Lane. Originally the road for the project had been proposed to create a through-street out of the cul-de-sac on which his lot was located. The revised plan, without the through-street, was satisfactory to the owner of Lot 8. MOTION 1: Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Torjesen, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--5-0-0 •Planning Commission Minutes 3 August 13, 1984 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Torjesen, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of the Bluffs Company for Zoning District change from Rural to R1-13.5 for approximately three acres for Bluffs West 3rd Addition, based on the revised plans dated July 16, 1984, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated July 9, and August 10, 1984. Motion carried--5-0-0 MOTION 3: Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Torjesen, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of the Bluffs Company for Preliminary Plat of 14.3 acres into 20 single family residential lots for Bluffs West 3rd Addition, based on revised plans dated July 16, 1984, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated July 9, and August 10, 1984. Motion carried--5-0-0 B. BLUFFS WEST 5TH ADDITION, by the Bluffs Company. Request for Zoning District Change from R1-22 to R1-13.5 for 14.5 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 14.5 acres into 32 single family lots. • Location: South of Riverview Road, east of West Riverview Drive. A continued public hearing. Planning Staff had received a memorandum from Mr. Gene Dietz, City Engineer, suggesting a course of action on the storm sewer problems in the Bluffs area. Mr. Dietz had pointed out that the storm sewer situation must be resolved prior to final action on any of the proposed Bluffs projects by the City. Staff had also discussed the right-of-way width for Riverview Road with the Engineering Department and it was determined that 66 ft. would be adequate as the road was not contemplated as a collector road. Mr. Lloyd Erickson, engineer for proponent, reviewed the alternative alignments of roads within the project suggested at the previous Planning Commission meeting on this item. He pointed out that the design of an east- west road through the property, as opposed to the north-south road shown, would create many lots in need of variances for lot depth within any of the R1 Zoning Districts. Also, drainage would not be able to be accomplished as well with the east-west design. Based on these findings, proponent had not revised the plans from those originally shown the Commission at the July 9, 1984, Planning Commission. Chairman Bearman noted receipt of letters from Mrs. Ruth Hustad, Mr. James Diehl, and Mrs. Gayle Diehl and asked that these letters be made part of the permanent record for the project. Marhula asked if there had been resolution of the situation whereby the north-south road would be located directly across from the Diehl driveway. Mr. Erickson stated that the road and the driveway would be offset from each Planning Commission Minutes 4 August 13, 1984 other. The Diehls disagreed that this would happen. Mr. Erickson added that the proponents had reviewed the possibilities of splitting the excess right-of-way within West and East Riverview Drives and would split the excess right-of-way equally with the adjacent property owners. Chairman Bearman asked proponents if they had determined a method for servicing the plat with sanitary sewer. Mr. Wally Hustad, Jr., stated that there were several alternatives available. He stated that they could install sewer to service their plat only and pay for it themselves; or, they could install all of the sewer and share the cost of installation with the benefitting property owners; or, the City could install the sewer and assess anyone benefitting. Mrs. Gayle Diehl, 10530 West Riverview Drive, stated that she had several concerns: 1) She reiterated concern that the north-south road would align directly across from her driveway; 2) She stated that she felt the excess right-of-way should be maintained as is in order to keep a greater distance and feeling of openness between homes on either side of the road; and 3) She stated that she felt the developer could provide a better transition between the larger lots to the south and the proposed lots within the plat. Chairman Bearman asked if the City had required a 66-foot wide right-of-way in any other residential area in the City. Staff responded that the standard requirement was a 50-foot wide right-of-way. Torjesen stated that he felt perhaps it would be appropriate to maintain the 66-foot wide right-of-way in this case to keep a wider space between lots, thereby providing a transition of distance. Marhula expressed concern that not vacating a portion of the right-of-way would mean that the perimeter lots of the plat would be less than 13,500 sq. ft. Staff stated that they had suggested an alternative plan to proponent, which involved a cul-de-sac from the north off Riverview Road and eliminated any other additional roads for the plat. Mr. Erickson stated that they had reviewed such a lot arrangement and showed the Commission and audience a sketch of the lot layout suggested by Staff. Mr. Erickson emphasized that it was a sketch, and that the lots would need to be check dimensionally to determine whether they fit the R1-13.5 Zoning District requirements. Staff stated that the dimensioned plan, along with the storm sewer drainage, would need to be reviewed in detail prior to Staff recommendations on the plan. Mr. James Diehl, 10530 West Riverview Drive, stated that he preferred the design with the cul-de-sac from the north. He stated that he also preferred a 66-foot wide right-of-way for the road to allow for more distance between the lots. Mr. Diehl also expressed concern for the proposed temporary holding ponds for storm water. He stated that he felt they would be a Planning Commission Minutes 5 August 13, 1984 hazard to the children in the area. Ms. Kate Laseski, 12155 Riverview Road, owner of the property to the west of the proposed development, expressed concern about the storm water drainage for the property. She stated that the proposed plan showed all the water running through her property. She questioned who would be responsible if the land became too wet to be developed because of the manner in which storm water drainage would be proposed for this property east of her. Chairman Bearman stated that the memorandum from the City Engineer was clear that no development of this area should take place until a solution to the storm water drainage had been found and implemented. Mr. Dennis Laufenberger, 11800 Riverview Road, asked who would be responsible for paying for sewer and questioned whether people on the north side of Riverview Road should expect any assessments because of improvements to this property. Staff responded that anyone affected by an assessment would be notified of a hearing to be held prior to the levying of the assessments. Torjesen stated that he felt it would be a good idea for anyone in a future assessment area to attend any meeting regarding the assessments as any assessment in their area may affect them. • Mr. Laufenberger asked if an analysis of the traffic for Riverview Road in the future had been done. Staff responded that the traffic had been studied and that it had been determined that the road was of sufficient size to handle the added trips from this development, without upgrading of the road. Staff added that the difference between development of the site as R1-22 and R1-13.5 had been reviewed and it was found that there would be no significant change from one district to the other for this property in terms of traffic impact. Chairman Bearman stated that Riverview Road was built for a greater capacity that it currently had in terms of traffic. Planner Enger added that Riverview Road was designed to handle 3,000 trips per day and that it was currently at approximately 10% of its capacity. Mr. Laufenberger stated that he also had a concern that, during construction, the developer and those working for him please be aware of the number of children in the area. He stated that construction sites were natural attractions to children in any case, even though parents might warn children against them. Mr. Laufenberger pointed out that there were many young children in the area. Mr. Hustad stated that they, too, were concerned that children would not be injured on their sites and that he would encourage his contractors to take necessary precautions during development. Ms. Ellen Koshenina, 10501 East Riverview Drive, stated that she felt a better transition should be seriously considered between the existing larger lots and the proposed R1-13.5 lots. She stated that she worked in real estate and felt that larger lots would sell as easily and would provide opportunity for larger homes in the area. She added that she was. also concerned about the storm water drainage for the area and erosion control Planning Commission Minutes 6 August 13, 1984 during and after construction of the development. Mr. Regis Betsch, 11941 Pendleton Court, stated concern about the storm water drainage, also. He pointed out that currently in this area storm water drainage consisted of overland drainage and storm water holding ponds. He stated that he did not feel the City needed any more storm water holding ponds in this area. Ms. Sue O'Donnell, 11590 Riverview Road, expressed preference for the road bed to be located in the center of the right-of-way to allow for equal distance between homes across the street from one another. Mr. Water Deeres, 11650 Riverview Road, stated that he felt Riverview Road was becoming a through-street in the area. He stated that he felt the road should be studied before it became a traffic hazard to those living in the area to find alternatives to it being a busy street. Mr. Jim Brown, 11551 Riverview Road, stated that, in the past, when the loop road represented by East and West Riverview Drive was platted, 66-foot wide right-of-ways were standard. He added that it was his recollection that the R1-22 zoning had been approved for this area to allow people to sell their property at that time as most of the lots were under the five-acre minimum requirement for the Rural District minimum at that time. MOTION: Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Torjesen, to continue the item to the August 27, 1984, Planning Commission meeting to allow proponent time to revise the plan with a cul-de-sac from the north, off Riverview Road, and with consideration for transitioning lots along the south border of the property with existing lots to the south. Further, the revised plat should require no variances from the R1-13.5 District requirements. Staff was asked to publish the item for the next available Council meeting, as the Planning Commission would be prepared to act on either proposal at that meeting and to forward the item to the Council to avoid further delay for proponent. Motion carried--5-0-0 C. LANDMARK WEST, by Landmark Northwest, Inc. Request for Comprehen- sive Guide Plan Amendment from Office to Commercial ; Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment; Zoning District Change from Rural to Neighborhood Commercial (with variances for the Board of Appeals), and Preliminary Plat of 7.29 acres for service uses (retail, 200- seat restaurant, health club, fast food restaurant, and gas station/convenience store) . Location: Southeast corner of Shady Oak Road and City West Parkway. A continued public hearing. Mr. John Uban, representing proponent, reviewed the requested Guide Plan change. Mr. Paul Dahlberg, architect for proponent, reviewed the revised elevations and site perspectives for the project. He pointed out that the rooftop mechanical equipment would be screened with a parapet wall. Planning Commission Minutes 7 August 13, 1984 Mr. Dahlberg stated that signage would be all of a similar type along one signage band across the top of the building with thirty-inch high lettering. Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report evaluating the revised request. Torjesen asked about the requested variance from the required number of parking spaces within such a shopping area. Staff responded that, based on other shopping areas within the community, 5.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area was an adequate amount of parking for the development. Proponents were showing 35 spaces beyond this ratio. Marhula asked about access to City West Parkway at the northeast corner of the site. Staff responded that there would be a curb cut and median cut in this location for this property and the property to the north of City West Parkway in the future. Torjesen stated that he felt the proposed change to the Comprehensive Guide Plan was still the major issue. He stated that the letter received by the Planning Commission from the Uherkas, property owners to the west, stated opposition to the proposed Comprehensive Guide Plan change. He stated that he felt the question before the Commission should be whether this project was good for this neighborhood and the overall community, not whether it was good for City West by itself, as any use in this area would have an impact • on the surrounding properties. Torjesen stated that he felt the Comprehensive Guide Plan was a document which should only be changed with good reason, not something which should be changed easily, or without adequate support and consideration for the impact upon the surrounding properties. Chairman Bearman stated that he felt the Comprehensive Guide Plan could be changed, if there were a compelling reason to do so. He asked proponents if they had discussed the design framework with their potential users. Ms. Beverly Ahern, representing Landmark, stated that this had been discussed with them and that future tenants would be agreeing to maintain a cohesive design framework throughout the development. She added that this would be part of their contract with the future tenants. Ms. Ahern stated that the Burger King would be a new style of store, which would be tried at this site, aimed at the office lunch crowd. Its design fit well within the framework proposed by the Landmark proposal . Chairman Bearman asked if there would be an association which would control maintenance and upkeep for the property. Mr. Richard Martin, Winfield Development, future owners of the project, stated that these controls would be exercised by his firm as owners. Chairman Bearman asked if the hours of the various tenants were known. Mr. Martin responded that the hours of operation were not known at this time. Mr. Stan Hughes, Honeywell , owners of the site to the north, stated that Honeywell was generally in support of the proposal . He suggested that the gas service station on the site be more of a full-service station, rather than a residential type station. He pointed out that there would be need Planning Commission Minutes 8 August 13, 1984 i for car-starting in an office area such as this. Mr. Hughes stated that he was concerned about the location of the access drive and the future median cut. He stated that it was not known to them that this median cut had been established as to location and asked that his firm be included in any future discussions on this matter. Mr. Uban stated that he would contact Honeywell directly to coordinate as to the access and median cut to the satisfaction of all property owners. Hallett asked that Staff, also, include Honeywell in any future discussion of access in this area. Staff stated that they would. Hallett asked if the future operator of the service station had considered a full-service operation. Ms. Ahern stated that he had, but that no final decision had been made at this time. Torjesen asked what would happen to the large cottonwood tree on the site. Mr. Uban responded that they had had the tree inspected and found that it was not a healthy tree at this time. He stated that any efforts to save the tree would likely be fruitless in that the tree's life expectancy was only a few years at this time. MOTION 1: Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Johannes, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--5-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Johannes, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request for Comprehensive Guide Plan change and Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment from Office to Neighborhood Commercial for Landmark Northwest for 7.29 acres, based in revised plans dated August 7, 1984, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated June 8, and August 10, 1984, and to add the following conditions: 21) Developer shall prepare a design framework manual for the property to be part of the overall approval and developer's agreement for the property; 22) Honeywell, property owner to the north, be included in any and all future discussions and decisions regarding the access and median cut in City West Parkway; 23) The City forester be asked to review the condition of the cottonwood tree on the site and report back to Planning Staff as to its condition. Motion carried--5-0-0 MOTION 3: Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Johannes, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request for Zoning District change from Rural to Neighborhood Commercial (with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals) for 7.29 acres for Landmark Northwest for service uses, based on revised plans dated August 7, 1984, subject to the recommendations of the Planning Commission Minutes 9 August 13, 1984 Staff Reports dated June 8, and August 10, 1984, and to add following conditions: 21) Developer shall prepare a design framework manual for the property to be part of the overall approval and developer's agreement for the property; 22) Honeywell , property owner to the north, be included in any and all future discussions and decisions regarding the access and median cut in City West Parkway; 23) The City forester be asked to review the condition of the cottonwood tree on the site and report back to Planning Staff as to its condition. Motion carried--5-0-0 MOTION 4: Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Johannes, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request for Preliminary Plat of 7.29 acres into one lot for Landmark Northwest for service uses, based on revised plans dated August 7, 1984, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated June 8, and August 10, 1984, and to add the following conditions: 21) Developer shall prepare a design framework manual for the property to be part of the overall approval and developer's agreement for the property; 22) Honeywell, property owner to the north, be included in any and all future discussions and decisions regarding the access and median cut in City West Parkway; 23) The City forester be asked to review the condition of the cottonwood tree on the site and report back to Planning Staff as to its condition. Motion carried--5-0-0 D. TREANOR ADDITION, by Guy K. Treanor. Request for Preliminary Plat of 0.734 acres into two lots for residential development. Location: 16135 Valley View Road. A public hearing. Mr. Guy Treanor explained his request for Preliminary Plat of property on Valley View Road. He reviewed the history of his previous request of over one year ago, as well, which had been denied by the City Council . Mr. Treanor had made the requested revisions in the plat, adding that the new lot would have a 95 ft. width and a 168 ft. depth. Sewer and water hook-ups were available in Valley View Road to service the lot. Mr. Treanor reviewed the lot sizes in the surrounding area, pointing out inconsistencies with the required dimensions of the zoning districts in the area in terms of lot area, lot depth, and lot width. Mr. Treanor presented two petitions: one presented from his previous request, stating opposition to the request; the other was one he circulated in the neighborhood regarding the revised plan wherein many of the neighbors who had been against the project previously had now signed in favor of the project this time. Planner Enger reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report evaluating the request. He stated that the major concern was regarding storm water run-off in this vicinity. He stated that there was a question raised regarding the percolation rate of the property if more of the ground was covered with impervious materials. If the ground could not hold the Planning Commission Minutes 10 August 13, 1984 amount of water from a rainfall or from snow melt, the water would stand as a pond in the rear area of the lots. Hallett asked about the cost of installation drain pipe to handle such a project. Staff responded that a rough estimate would be approximately $6,500. Staff stated that the pipe would have to be installed across other properties, as well as Mr. Treanors. Therefore, a question would be raised as to who would benefit from the installation of the pipe, and, based on benefit, who would be responsible for payment for installation of the pipe. Torjesen asked what implications there would be for other lots such as Mr. Treanor's in the future--lots with larger acreage than the R1-22 or R1-13.5 requirements, along a road, more or less remnants from previous development. Staff responded that each case would have to be looked at individually to determine suitability for division. However, if other lots could meet the criteria that Mr. Treanor had met, it would be appropriate to divide the property. Marhula asked if there had been any indication of the improvement schedule for Valley View Road. Staff responded that the City Council had determined that construction would take place in 1987. Mr. Mary Lahti, 16213 Valley View Road, stated that he was not in favor of the plat in that he felt the frontages for the lots concerned would be less that those of the area and these lots would appear congested compared to the surrounding area. MOTION 1: Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Marhula, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--5-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Marhula, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Guy Treanor for Preliminary Plat of 0.734 acres into two lots for residential development, based on plans dated July 16, 1984, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated August 10, 1984. Torjesen questioned whether it was in the best interest of the community to allow smaller frontages along Valley View Road. Staff responded that, in this case, it appeared that there would not be negative impact on the surrounding properties. Staff added that it is necessary for transition to be successful in situations such as this, also. Torjesen stated that it appeared as if this entire stretch of Valley View Road was headed in that direction, based on development patterns. Torjesen suggested that a policy be formed to deal with these matters uniformly as they would appear before the City for review. Hallett stated that he disagreed and that he felt each case should be looked Planning Commission Minutes 11 August 13, 1984 at individually, based upon its own merits. Motion carried--4-1-0 (Torjesen against) Torjesen stated that he voted against as he felt that all of the properties along Valley View Road should be reviewed. He added that he had no objection to the project, itself. E. BLUFFS EAST 3RD ADDITION, by the Bluffs Company. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 for 9.63 acres, and Preliminary Plat of approximately 9.63 acres for 29 single family lots. Location: West of Franlo Road, South of Lee Drive. A public hearing. Mr. Lloyd Erickson, representing proponent, reviewed the proposed development with the Commission. Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report evaluating the request. Torjesen asked if any variances were being requested for the project. Mr. Erickson responded that there were none. Marhula asked why Staff had recommended that the rear of the lots be sodded as part of the development conditions. Staff stated that this was due to the instability of the bluff soils in this vicinity. Mr. Bob Ovie, 10559 Grant Avenue, asked if there were any plans for additional parks in this area. Staff responded that there was a City park planned in this area, which had not yet been developed. MOTION 1: Motion was made by Torjesen, seconded by Johannes, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--5-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Torjesen, seconded by Johannes, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of the Bluffs Company for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 for 9.63 acres, based on plans dated June 26, 1984, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated August 10, 1984. Motion carried--5-0-0 MOTION 3: Motion was made by Torjesen, seconded by Johannes, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of the Bluffs Company for Preliminary Plat of 9.63 acres into single family lots, based on plans dated June 26, 1984, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated August 10, 1984. Motion carried--5-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes 12 August 13, 1984 F. VALLEY LAKE BUSINESS CENTER, by GSB Investments. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential and Undesignated to Industrial ; Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 for 4.4 acres for a 50,000 sq. ft. office/industrial building (with variances for the Board of Appeals) ; and Preliminary Plat of 10.63 acres into one lot and one outlot. Location: West of Prairie Center Drive, south of Valley View Road, along the northwest shore of Smetana Lake. A public hearing. Mr. Gerald Portnoy, proponent, reviewed the proposed development with the Commission, explaining the concept of the building as 75% office, 25% other uses. Mr. Greg DuMonceaux, representing proponent, reviewed the site features and development characteristics, including the treatment of the Lakeshore area. He pointed out that the access to Valley View Road had been planned to provide a joint access with the property to the east at such time as it would develop, as Staff had requested in their early review of the site. Planner Enger reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report evaluating the request. Torjesen asked how many residential uses remained in this area. Mr. Portnoy listed four properties in the vicinity, noting that this entailed approximately 35-40 acres of property. Marhula asked about the dimensions of the slopes toward the lake. Mr. DuMonceaux responded that the area would be graded with 3/1 slopes. Marhula asked if the proposed use would be consistent with the Comprehensive Guide Plan and other uses in the area. Staff responded that, in their opinion, it would be consistent. Johannes asked if it was the City's intent to limit other uses within the structure to 25% of the space. Staff responded that it was not--this was proposed by proponent. Torjesen asked what types of uses there would be for the future of the remaining residential parcels. Staff responded that this area would gradually transition from Low Density Residential to more intense uses over time. The proposed use was considered compatible with this. Mrs. Pat Kosteka, 10805 Valley View Road, owner of the property to the east, and acting as representative for the Smetana families in the area, stated that this site was one of high visibility in the area. She stated that she and the families she represented felt the uses in the area, and in particular on this site, should be office. Mrs. Kosteka also expressed concern regarding drainage in the area as it would affect her property and the driveway easement she had for her property on the eastern boundary of the property proposed for development by proponent. Mr. Portnoy responded that he fully intended to maintain the driveway easement for her property. He added that the drainage for the area would improve with the development of his site. Planning Commission Minutes 13 August 13, 1984 Mrs. Kosteka stated that there was a great deal of development in the area, making it undesirable to maintain a residential use in the area. She stated that the construction in the area had become more than a nuisance and stated that her family no longer wished to live in the area on a permanent basis. Torjesen stated that, if it was determined that it was no longer desirable to maintain a residential use in the Smetana Lake area, then the use he preferred would be office. MOTION 1: Motion was made by Johannes, seconded by Marhula, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--5-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Johannes, seconded by Marhula, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of GSB Investments for Comprehensive Guide Plan change from Low Density Residential and Undesignated to Industrial (or Office), based on written materials dated July 23, 1984, and plans Staff- dated August 10, 1984, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report • dated August 10, 1984. Motion carried--4-0-1 (Chairman Bearman abstained) MOTION 3: Motion was made by Johannes, seconded by Marhula, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of GSB Investments for Zoning District change from Rural to I-2 (with variances) for 4.4 acres for a 50,000 sq. ft. office/industrial building, based on written materials dated July 23, 1984, and plans Staff-dated August 10, 1984, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated August 10, 1984. Motion carried--4-0-1 (Chairman Bearman abstained) MOTION 4: Motion was made by Johannes, seconded by Marhula, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of GSB Investments for Preliminary Plat of 10.63 acres into one lot and one outlot for a 50,000 sq. ft. office/industrial building, based on written materials dated July 23, 1984, and plans Staff-dated August 10, 1984, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated August 10, 1984. Motion carried--4-0-1 (Chairman Bearman abstained) Chairman Bearman stated that his reason for abstaining was personal . Planning Commission Minutes 14 August 13, 1984 V. NEW BUSINESS A. Flying Cloud Airport Commission Proposed Signage Ordinance The Commission reviewed the signage proposal briefly, postponing final recommendation on the item to the August 28, 1984, Planning Commission meeting. VI. OLD BUSINESS None. VII. PLANNER'S REPORT None. VIII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Hallett, seconded by Johannes. Chairman Bearman adjourned the meeting at 12:50 a.m. Respectfully submitted, *;911ea4t ��s Kate Karnas Recording Secretary