Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission - 11/24/1986 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, November 24, 1986 7:30 p.m. COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman Ed Schuck, Richard Anderson, Julianne Bye, Christine Dodge, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett, Charles Ruebling STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Don Uram, Assistant Planner; Kate Karnas, Administrative Assistant Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call I . APPROVAL OF AGENDA II. ' MEMBERS REPORTS III. MINUTES IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS (7:35) A. SUBURBAN NATIONAL BANK/PRESERVE MEDICAL BUILDING, by Supplee 's 7-Hi Enterprises, Inc. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Office on 1.09 acres, Zoning District • Change from Rural to Office on 1.09 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals and Preliminary Plat of 1.09 acres into one lot for the construction of a two-story office building. Location: South.of Anderson makes Parkway, west of County Road #18. A continued public hearing. (8:35) B. EATON ADDITION, by Eaton Corporation. Request for Preliminary Plat of 46.8 acres into two lots. Location: South of Highway #5, West of Technology Drive, East of Wallace Road. A public hearing. (8:45) C. THE TREE FARM, by Countryside Investments, Inc. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Public Open Space to Low Density Residential on 11.3 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 33.6 acres, Preliminary Plat of 33.6 acres into 78 single family lots and road right-of-way. Location: South of County Road #1, west of Surrey Street. A public hearing. (9:30) D. EDEN POINTE, by Welsh Companies, Inc. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 60.86 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 60.85 acres with variances, Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 Park on 2.84 acres into one lot for construction of a 32,700 square foot office/warehouse building. Location: West of Flying Cloud Drive, east of Highway #169. A public hearing. (10: 15) E. TECHNOLOGY PARK 7TH, by Technology Park Associates. Request for • Zoning District Amendment within the Office District on 3.74 acres for construction of a 27,700 square foot office building. Location: East of future Golden Triangle Drive, north of Nine Mile Creek. A public meeting. Agenda • Monday, November 24, 1986 P age Two V. OLD BUSINESS VI . NEW BUSINESS VI I . PLANNER' S REPORT VI I I . ADJOURNMENT NOTE: THE TIMES LISTED ABOVE ARE TENTATIVE, AND MAY BE SIGNIFICANTLY EARLIER, OR LATER, THAN LISTED. • MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, November 24, 1986 School Board Meeting Room 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ed Schuck, Rich Anderson (7:35 p.m.), Julianne Bye, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett, Chuck Ruebling MEMBER ABSENT: Christine Dodge STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Donald Uram, Assistant Planner; Kate Karnas, Administrative Assistant Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to approve the agenda as printed. Motion carried--5-0-0 II. MEMBERS REPORTS None. (Anderson arrived at 7:35 p.m.) III. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. SUBURBAN NATIONAL BANK/PRESERVE MEDICAL BUILDING, by Supplee's 7-Hi Enterprises, Inc. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Office on 1.09 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to Office on 1.09 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals and Preliminary Plat of 1.09 acres into one lot for the construction of a two-story office building. Location: South of Anderson Lakes Parkway, west of County Road #18. A continued public hearing. Mr. Ron Erickson, representing proponent, reviewed the proposed development with the Commission. He stated that he did not believe the property should be developed as Low Density Residential, which was the designated land use according to the Comprehensive Guide Plan. He stated that the reasons for this included that there were better sites for Low Density Residential development within the community, the property was located adjacent to County Road #18 and would be subject to traffic noise, and that the cost of the land was high, prohibiting purchase of the property for Low Density Residential purposes. Planning Commission Minutes 2 November 24, 1986 Mr. Erickson stated that this building was proposed for office use and that the use would be a "quiet neighbor" in the evening and on. weekends. He added that this would not necessarily be true for a commercial use, or for a multiple family use. In meetings with neighbors, Mr. Erickson stated that three concerns surfaced, including concern about automobile circulation so close to homes, for screening of the structure from the existing single family residents, and privacy with respect to the sight lines into their homes from the proposed structure. He stated that, due to these concerns, several modifications were made to the plans. Circulation of automobiles was now proposed only on the east side of the structure, oriented toward County Road #18. The structure was screened by berming and plantings, with the berm actually built against the lower portion of the west wall of the property. In addition, there were no windows shown on the west wall, and the building had been redesigned to support a single-loaded corridor of offices, thereby eliminating the need for any windows on the west wall . Mr. Erickson stated that he did not feel it was appropriate to design the building with "residential character," considering the building was fronting along County Road #18 and considering the type of exterior materials used, including brick. He stated that there was extensive landscaping proposed along the back (west side) of the structure, including evergreen trees 14-16 feet in height. Six-foot high arborvitae plantings were also proposed, along with relocation of some of the trees on the property. Mr. Erickson stated .that there would be a continuation of the fence which existed between the commercial use to the north and the residential area west of it. He stated that this fence would be high enough to screen automobiles from County Road #18. A traffic study had been prepared by the proponent, dealing with access and traffic circulation on, and around, the site. The entrance from County Road #18 had been designated as a "right-in, only" entrance. Mr. Erickson stated that the proponents were working with the owner of the shopping center to the north to see whether the two sites could be connected by driveway access. He pointed out that it would be necessary to redesign the circulation of traffic in the shopping center to accomplish this connection. Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report of November 21, 1986, with the Commission. He stated that the major issue in this proposal was that of the proposed Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Office land use. Planner Franzen stated that the amendment of the Comprehensive Plan would have an impact on the five acres of land to the south of the proposed development, pointing out that there was only a ten-foot wide transition proposed between the proposed Office land use and the designated Low Density Residential land use to the south. With respect to the structure, itself, Planner Franzen stated that it was Staff's opinion that the structure should be more residential in character on the west side, abutting the existing residential neighborhood. He noted that Staff was concerned with the massiveness of the structure, the height, and the size as it related to the existing residential neighborhood. He added that it was Staff's opinion that the landscaping proposed was - not Planning Commission Minutes 3 November 24, 1986 adequate to make up for the lack of residential character to the structure. Staff was recommending more coniferous plantings of the same height and size as shown in order to provide for better screening, as the amount of space between the proposed trees in this location was too great to screen effectively. It was also Staff's opinion that the proponent needed to be sensitive to the residential area to the west by providing some interest to the landscaping, perhaps by color. Perennials and annuals were suggested. The Staff Report indicated that the lighting proposed for the property may still be visible from the single family residential area to the west. Staff recommended use of bollard type lighting, instead of 20-ft. high down-cast luminars. Planner Franzen noted that the Staff was awaiting confirmation from Hennepin County regarding access to the property and from the owner of the shopping mall to the south of the property regarding circulation proposed. Gartner asked if County Road #18 was divided in this location. Planner Enger responded that it was not. Gartner asked if it would be divided in the future. Planner Enger responded that the existing road bed of County Road #18 would become the service road for County Road #18, which would actually be built to the east of the existing road. He noted that the proponents were anticipating a full access to this "service road" in the future. Gartner stated that she was concerned about traffic and circulation of the traffic in this location. She stated that she did not feel that allowing additional traffic to circulate through the retail shopping center to the north would create a good situation. Hallett asked if the five acres of land designated for Low Density Residential land use south of the property was adjacent to the lots along Garrison Way, to the west. Planner Franzen stated that that was the case. Hallett stated that he felt that it was valid to believe that the five acres to the south would be under pressure to develop as a use other than Low Density Residential, if this development were approved as proposed. It would be setting a precedent for other properties adjacent to County Road #18, which was not necessarily desirable, nor appropriate. Planner Enger pointed out that there was no transition planned between the proposed use and the five acres to the south. He noted that proponents were providing for the standard requirement for a ten-foot wide side yard setback at this location, only. Planner Enger stated that it was reasonable to expect that the five acres south of this property would be under pressure for development as uses other than Low Density Residential , if the proposed development were to be approved. Hallett asked if the residents along Garrison Way had been contacted about the proposed development. Mr. Erickson responded that they had been for a general meeting of the neighborhood, which was held on October 9, 1986. He pointed out that the majority of the meetings held with residents by the proponent were held with the residents living on Clark Circle, directly abutting the proposed development. Staff confirmed that these same residents were contacted about the City meetings, as well . Planning Commission Minutes 4 November 24, 1986 Mr. Erickson stated that he felt the message from the neighborhood was they did not want any commercial uses located on this property, nor on the five acres south of the property. Bye asked about servicing of the site for trash removal . Mr. Erickson responded that the trash would be removed through the doorways to the structure, likely in small quantities during evening hours. Bye stated that a portion of the structure had been designated for use by medical facilities and that there was a large amount of paper associated with such uses. She questioned whether the method proposed would be sufficient for trash removal for such a use. Mr. Erickson stated that the proponent had made a commitment that there would not be any outside dumpsters on the property. Bye asked if the medical facility would be operating on Saturdays. Mr. Erickson stated that the medical facility would be open on Saturday, as would the bank drive-through facility. Bye pointed out that Saturday was also a prime time for shoppers at the supermarket in the commercial center directly north of the property, with which the proposed use was planning to share parking and driveways for traffic circulation. Bye also expressed concern that the proposed development would provide for a new opportunity for automobiles to bypass the Anderson Lakes Parkway/County Road #18 intersection and stop light by allowing for automobiles to cut through the parking lot in order to access County Road #18, or Anderson Lakes Parkway. Anderson stated that he was concerned about traffic circulation. He stated that he did not feel the patterns for traffic at the point of the County Road #18 access, the connection to the shopping center driveway, and the driveway for the proposed development, where all three converged, was a safe situation. Mr. Erickson stated that there could be a stop sign installed at that location. Anderson stated that he did not feel that would be adequate solution to the traffic problems that this intersection would create. Mr. Erickson stated that traffic from the bank would be approximately one car per minute, which would provide for even flow of traffic from that use. Anderson stated that he felt there would be traffic conflicts created by drivers of automobiles who had been through the bank facility wanting to cross through to the supermarket. He stated that he felt there would also be conflict created by drivers from both facilities wanting to access County Road #18 southbound at this location. Gartner asked if all northbound traffic from the proposed bank facility would be required to cross through the supermarket parking area in order to access Anderson Lakes Parkway, then turn north onto County Road #18. Mr. Erickson verified that this would be the case. Ruebling asked how many employees would be working in the proposed structure. Mr. Erickson stated that he did not know how many workers there would be. Ruebling asked if there would be an area designated for employee parking. Mr. Erickson stated that there was, and indicated the location of the area on the plans. Ruebling added that he was concerned about pedestrian crossing of the area, also. Planning Commission Minutes 5 November 24, 1986 Gartner asked about the parking proposed in the shopping center parking lot, which was to be designated for use by the bank/medical facility. Planner Enger pointed out that the majority of the parking spaces for the use were located in the shopping center parking lot. He stated that one of the recommendations of the Staff Report was that the parking abutting the drive- through be eliminated as it was clear that circulation would be congested in that area, and additional stacking of vehicles in this area would be unavailable, if the parking abutting the drive-through was allowed as shown. Mr. Erickson explained that the proponents had not requested replatting of the property in order to include the area for parking for the bank/medical building within the shopping center parking lot due to ownership considerations. Therefore, proponents were requesting a variance to accommodate this need. Anderson asked how large a building could be allowed on this property under the Office Zoning District and still allow for meeting City Code requirements. He questioned, in particular, whether a structure of this size would be allowed on the property considering that the parking requirements could not be met without using the shopping center parking lot for a large portion of the required parking for the site. Planner Enger responded that the proponents did show a 30% floor area ratio for the property. He stated that one of the problems with the design of this property as an Office use was that a drive-through facility occupied a large portion of the site. Also, he noted that the site was inefficient for Office use due to its size. Planner Enger stated that, without the parking provided from the shopping center parking lot, the structure likely would be half its proposed size, or approximately 6,500 sq. ft. Bye asked if it would be necessary to provide for an "internal service road" between this site and the five acres to the south, as was done with the Allstate property, or the Hardies/Kentucky Fried Chicken/Pizza Hut properties. Planner Enger responded that Hennepin County had requested that the five acres to the south of the property be accessed via the driveway access they were granting off County Road #18 for this site, rather than allow for another driveway access off County Road #18. Mr. Erickson stated that the Hennepin County Transportation Department had indicated to him that they would be reviewing another access for the property to the south. Chairman Schuck asked if there was any opportunity for the five acres of property to the south to be included within the development of the subject property. Mr. Erickson stated that there was not. He stated that his client did not need any more property, and, therefore, did not want any more property for this use. He added that it was his opinion that increased setback area to the property to the south would only provide for less lot area on the property, but that it would not impact the size of the structure proposed for the development. Mr. Charles Sabathne, 9652 Clark Circle, stated that he believed the neighorhood would prefer to see several $200,000 homes on this property, but that this'was not the proposal . He stated that he felt the proponent had tried to work with the residents, noting that his biggest concern was what would happen to the property values of their lots, if this was approved. He questioned what other options for development of the property might be Planning Commission Minutes 6 November 24, 1986 available and the impact any of those options might have on the value of the residential properties. Mr. Sabathne stated that he felt a multiple family residential use of the property would be less desirable than commercial, or office, use of the property. Mr. Sabathne stated that he was concerned, also, about lighting from the proposed development shining onto his lot. He expressed concern that an amendment of the Comprehensive Guide Plan designation for the five acres of property to the south of this site not be considered at this time. He stated that he viewed the proposed development as positive for the existing residential neighborhood as it provided opportunity to the neighbors for berming and landscaping that might not be available with other types of land use developments. Mr. Kuo Chang, 9662 Clark Circle, stated that he was encouraged to see that the Staff had considered the issues that were of concern to the neighborhood in the Staff Report on the proposed development. He pointed out that he would be directly facing the 190 ft. long wall of the structure and stated that the foilage of the trees which was proposed for screening purposes would be gone for half of the year. Mr. Chang stated that he could currently see for miles from his home, but that the introduction of this structure to the neighborhood would block his view completely. He stated that his other concerns included lighting, the number of cars and the amount of noise the cars would introduce into the neighborhood, and solid waste disposal from the site, particularly from the medical facility proposed. Mr. Dave Oliver, 9661 Clark Circle expressed concern about the impact of this development upon the future land uses of the five acres of land south of the property. He indicated concern that the development of the five acres to the south would be unduly influenced by this development, if it was approved, stating that there were no guarantees that the future development of the five acres to the south would be designed taking the existing residential neighborhood into consideration. Mr. Oliver stated that he did not feel this development should be allowed to set a precedent for the land uses to the south. He added that it was his opinion that the neighborhood would prefer a one-story building, instead of the two-story structure proposed. Mr. Norm Ziesman, 9425 Garrison Way, stated that, as a group, the neighborhood appeared to be against this development, initially. He stated that he concurred with Mr. Oliver regarding the concern for setting precedent for the future land use of the property to the south, which was also guided for Low Density Residential use. Mr. Ziesman stated that he would hope that the future developer of the five acres of property to the south would approach the neighborhood with the same spirit of cooperation that this developer had offered. Mr. Ziesman expressed concern about pedestrian access from the Garrison Way neighborhood. He stated that he would prefer the access be eliminated entirely in order to prevent people from crossing through his neighborhood to the office use. Mr. Ziesman added that he shared the concerns of his neighbors regarding lighting. With respect to the drive lanes for the bank, Mr. Ziesman asked if there Planning Commission Minutes 7 November 24, 1986 • were to be two lanes, or three. Mr. Erickson stated that there were to be three. Mr. Ziesman stated that the plans shown to the residents had indicated only two. Mr. Erickson stated that this was a requirement of the bank that a third lane be added. Mr. Erickson stated that, with respect to the concerns about lighting from the property impacting the adjacent neighborhood, the proponents would work with Staff toward preventing the light from impacting the adjacent neighborhood. Regarding the size of the building, Mr. Erickson stated that this was a f difficult site. He stated that, as the architects for the proponent, they had tried to solve the problem of the size of the site from the beginning. Mr. Erickson stated that if this development did not receive approval, the problem of size for the site would remain, regardless of the use proposed. He pointed out that the proponents would be widening County Road #18 in this location to provide for the right-turn lane for the right-in access from County Road #18. He stated that the landscaping for the back of the building would cost approximately $20,000, which did not include any of the required landscaping on the east side of the structure. Mr. Erickson stated that if the building was cut back in size, it would not be economically feasible to build the project due to the costs involved. He stated that they were trying to find a compromise between the bank and the neighborhood. • Chairman Schuck stated that he did not believe that the Planning Commission would automatically recommend approval of any land use for the five acres south of the property proposed for development. Other Commissioners concurred. He complimented the neighbors and the representatives of the proponent for trying to mitigate the matters of concern. Hallett asked where the closest two-story building was from this property. Planner Enger responded that it would be north, around the I-494 interchange with County Road #18, approximately 1.5 miles away. Hallett stated that he concurred with Chairman Schuck regarding the compliment to the neighborhood and proponents working together. However, he stated that he felt the proponents had designed the site with too much intensity. He stated that he felt it was clear that the traffic, screening, and structure problems resulted from too much building be placed on too little property. Hallett suggested that reducing the building to one story, instead of two, might provide a reasonable alternative. Ruebling stated that he agreed with Hallett regarding the intensity of the site development as proposed. He stated that he felt the site was too small for the building and that traffic patterns required substantial improvement based on the proposed site plan. Ruebling stated that he was not comfortable that the internal matters had been settled, either, referring to the trash removal from the site. Anderson stated that he agreed with the concerns of Hallett and Ruebling. He stated that he was most concerned about the traffic circulation for the property and that he did not feel that the circulation, as proposed, was appropriate. Anderson stated that the City and the neighborhood should not be concerned that this is the "last chance" for this property to be developed, and that, eventually, a different use could work on this Planning Commission Minutes 8 November 24, 1986 property. Anderson also expressed concern about the potential for setting precedent -for development of the five acres to the south as something other than Low Density Residential . Gartner stated that she concurred with Anderson regarding the traffic and circulation concerns. She stated that she felt a bank and medical facility could work well in conjunction with a shopping center, like the property to the north; however, she added that she did not feel it worked here in the manner proposed. Mr. Erickson stated that the proponents could not do anything else. He stated that the cost of the landscaping for the west side of the building and the cost of construction of the right-turn lane for County Road #18 would be raising the cost of the structure. He added that he felt the only alternative would be some sort of multiple family development for the property. Gartner stated that it may be necessary that this property remain vacant until County Road #18 was built in this area and the existing County Road #18 became a service road past this property. Bye stated that she was not convinced that the use proposed was appropriate for the site. She stated that she was concerned about the access to County Road #18 and the potential for setting a precedent for the type of land use that would be developed on the five acres of property to the south. She added that, as a minimum, she felt the transition to the south from this property needed to be strengthened. Bye added that she shared concerns of the other Commissioners regarding traffic circulation for this property and the shopping center. She stated that an Office use may be appropriate for this property, but that she did not feel the office building shown was the correct design. Hallett asked if the proponent would be amenable to purchasing more land to the south, or if he would consider reducing the size of the building. Mr. Erickson stated that the proponent would not return with a proposal for a smaller building. He added that he would prefer to go forward to the Council with a recommendation for denial , instead of asking for a continuance at the Planning Commission meeting for amendments to the plan that his client would not be making. MOTION 1: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--6-0-0 MOTION 2: Move to recommend to the City Council denial of the request of Supplee's 7- Hi Enterprises, Inc., for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Office for the Suburban National Bank/Preserve Medical Building, based on revised plans dated November 20, 1986, the Staff Report dated November 21, 1986, and the following findings: Planning Commission Minutes 9 November 24, 1986 1. The use of the property is too intense, resulting in impact upon the adjacent existing residential neighborhood and shopping center. 2. The traffic circulation for the property is inappropriate and provides a negative impact, in particular, at the conjunction of the shopping center driveway, the proposed office building driveway, and the right-in/right-out access to County Road #18. 3. Transition from the proposed use to the property to the south, which is guided for Low Density Residential development, is non-existent. 4. There is potential for setting a precedent for development of the property to the south as a use other than Low Density Residential, as designated on the Comprehensive Guide Plan. Motion carried--6-0-0 Hallett stated that he did not feel compelled to recommend approval of the proposed Comprehensive Guide Plan amendment based upon the information provided by proponent. He stated that, eventually, the property would develop with an appropriate use. Other Commissioners concurred. MOTION 3: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett, to recommend to the City Council denial of the request of Supplee's 7-Hi Enterprises, Inc., for Zoning District change from Rural to Office on 1.09 acres, with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, and denial of the request for Preliminary Plat of 1.09 acres into one lot for construction of a two-story office building, to be known as the Suburban National Bank/Preserve Medical Building, based on revised plans dated November 20, 1986, on the Staff Report dated November 21, 1986, and on the following findings: 1. The use of the property is too intense, resulting in impact upon the adjacent existing residential neighborhood and shopping center. 2.• The traffic circulation for the property is inappropriate and provides a negative impact, in particular, at the conjunction of the shopping center driveway, the proposed office building driveway, and the right-in/right-out access to County Road #18. 3. Transition from the proposed use to the property to the south, which is guided for Low Density Residential development, is non-existent. 4. There is potential for setting a precedent for development of the property to the south as a use other than Low Density Residential, as designated on the Comprehensive Guide Plan. Motion carried--6-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes 10 November 24, 1986 • B. EATON ADDITION, by Eaton Corporation. Request for Preliminary Plat of 46.8 acres into two lots. Location: South of Highway #5, West of Technology Drive, East of Wallace Road. A public hearing. Planner Enger stated that this was more of a "housekeeping" item. Proponents wished to sell a portion of the 46.8 acres, which required platting of the property. He stated that Staff had reviewed the request in the Staff Report of November 21, 1986, and that standard requirements with respect to dedication of right-of-way, details of storm water drainage for the two ponding basins, and connection to sanitary sewer and water were recommended. In addition, Staff recommended that proponent be required, as part of the platting process, to file a driveway and cross access agreement for purposes of providing access to the existing 66,000 sq. ft. office building. Chairman Schuck asked for comments, or questions, from members of the audience. There were none. MOTION 1: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--6-0-0 . MOTION 2: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Eaton Corporation for Preliminary Plat of 46.8 acres into two lots, based on plans dated November 4, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated November 21, 1986. Motion carried--6-0-0 C. THE TREE FARM, by Countryside Investments, Inc. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Public Open Space to Low Density Residential on 11.3 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 33.6 acres, Preliminary Plat of 33.6 acres into 78 single family lots and road right-of-way. Location: South of County Road #1, west of Surrey Street. A public hearing. Planner Enger explained that there were two special considerations with respect to this development, which were unusual. First, according to the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC), a portion of the property was located within an area designated as Safety Zone B, which involved restrictions as to land use due to airplane traffic. Second, the property was in close proximity to the Browning Ferris Industries sanitary landfill, with the closest lot proposed to be 1,200 ft. from the existing landfill and 700 ft. from the proposed landfill expansion area. Mr. Ron Krueger, representing proponent, reviewed the plans with the Commission. He showed the location of the property with respect to the landfill . Mr. Krueger then reviewed the site features, noting the wooded area where the majority of the pine trees were in excess of 30 ft. in height. He added that the design of the subdivision allowed for access to Planning Commission Minutes 11 November 24, 1986 the property to the west, as well . Mr. Krueger referred to that portion of the property which had been designated as Public Open Space according to the Comprehensive Guide Plan. He reported that he had discussed this with the Community Services Department and found that there was no need for park in this area, other than pedestrian trail routes. He stated that this was one of the major reasons for applying for the Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment for this portion of the property. With respect to Safety Zone B, as designated by MAC, Mr. Krueger noted that the rooftops of the proposed housing units would be at least 80 feet below the elevation of the airplanes enroute to the airport within the safety zone. Mr. Krueger reviewed the proponent's plan for transplanting of trees to screen the property from County Road #1 traffic and from the landfill to the south and west. Planner Uram reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report of November 21, 1986, with the Commission. He noted that the majority of the property was guided for Low Density Residential land use according to the Comprehensive Guide Plan, with the most southerly eight acres guided for Public Open Space. Planner Uram explained that Staff generally reviewed requests for Comprehensive Guide Plan changes in terms of how the proposed change may impact the surrounding land uses. However, in this case, he explained that the major concern was what impact the surrounding land uses would have on the eight acres of the property proposed for Comprehensive Guide Plan change--specifically, the landfill and the airport. Planner Uram explained that there were concerns about the interpretation of Safety Zone B regulations as would impact this property. He noted that the density per acre was allowed to be 15 people per acre, with a minimum lot size of three acres, according to the applicable MAC regulations for this area. However, he stated that it was unclear how the density was applied. Regarding the landfill, Planner Uram stated that, according to the City Attorney, it was expected that the request for expansion of the landfill would be revived some time after January 1, 1987. He pointed out that the active part of the landfill was currently 1,200 feet away from the property. Expansion of the landfill as requested by BFI would bring it within 700 feet of the property. Planner Uram noted that the common complaints in this area of the City with respect to the landfill involved debris and dust generated by operation of the landfill . With respect to the site plan, Planner Uram stated that the lots within the proposed development were generally in conformance with the requirements of the R1-13.5 Zoning District, with only minor adjustments necessary. He added that the developer still needed to provide the final calculations for the grading plan regarding the amount of cut and fill that would take place on the property. Planner Uram stated that he had reviewed the property with the City Forester, Stuart Fox, as part of the City's review of the development. He Planning Commission Minutes 12 November 24, 1986 stated that it was the City Forester's opinion that approximately half of the trees from the center of the site must be removed in order to allow the forest to mature. Regarding pedestrian systems, Planner Uram stated that there would be a connection from Homeward Hills Park to the west, with a minimum of one side of the street supporting a sidewalk for pedestrian access. Jean Johnson, Zoning Administrator and liaison to the Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission, reported that the City had been approached in the late 1970's about expansion of the airport, and that in the 1980's the idea of Safety Zones was established. The City, at that time, was requested to incorporate the Safety Zones into the Comprehensive Guide Plan and to adopt the attendant regulations for the various zones. Ms. Johnson noted that MAC continually receives noise complaints regarding the airport traffic. She stated that it was the opinion of the Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission that a density transfer should be considered in this case, thereby allowing for the development of the property, but which would also allow for the mitigation of any problems which may arise ' from the property being located within Safety Zone B. Planner Uram summarized the concerns of the Staff, stating that the requested Comprehensive Guide Plan amendment had not been substantiated and that Staff's primary concerns were the relationship of the proposed single • family residential development to the adjacent landfill site and Airport Safety Zone B. Mr. Gary Schmidt, representative from MAC, explained that MAC interpreted the regulations for Safety Zone B to mean that each use must be on a site of no less than three acres. Mr. Schmidt stated that MAC tries to review the overall compatibility of a site with respect to its proximity to the airport. He stated that, in the case of Flying Cloud Airport, the two parallel runways, the flight path for which would be over this property, receive approximately 70% of the use of the airport. Mr. Schmidt added that Flying Cloud Airport was one of the ten busiest airports in the country. He noted that it is expected that this record pace for use of the airport would continue to increase. Mr. Schmidt stated that MAC was concerned that there would be a significant number of noise complaints, if the development of this property was allowed within the area designated as Safety Zone B. Anderson stated that he was concerned about traffic in this area, noting that County Road #1 was currently a busy road. He asked when Homeward Hills Road would be completed. Planner Enger responded that the City Engineering Department predicted that it would be completed in the Fall, 1987. Hallett asked for a more detailed explanation of how this site was impacted by the designation Safety Zone B across a portion of the property. Ms. Johnson explained that the noise safety zones were in the process of being established at this time. She noted that the safety zones were considered . part of the Comprehensive Guide Plan, Airport Chapter at a concept level ; however, the regulations regarding density and lot size minimums had not yet been adopted by the City. Reubling stated that he did not feel that the Commission should make a Planning Commission Minutes 13 November 24, 1986 recommendation to the City Council on this project at this time given the problems presented by the Airport Safety Zone B considerations and the unknown outcome of the landfill expansion proposed by BFI. Chairman Schuck concurred with Reubling. He stated that market trends seemed to indicate that detached single family homes were popular now, which would make development of this site as single family homes an attractive proposition. Chairman Schuck stated that clustering of units, or lots, may be a more appropriate land use, considering the airport and landfill situations. Hallett stated that he did not feel it would be appropriate to prohibit the development of this property. He stated that he would consider a transfer of the density from the Airport Safety Zone B designated area as a possibility. Hallett asked if the City required the property for any park, or open space, purpose. Planner Uram responded that the Director of Community Services had informed Staff that the property was not necessary for any park element, with the exception of trail connections. Planner Enger noted that the City had not yet adopted the regulations proposed for Airport Safety Zone B; therefore, these regulations were not in full force, or effect, for this property at this point in time. He stated that it was unclear as to how the proposed regulations would relate to density assigned to this property. For example, one interpretation would • indicate that for that portion of the project within Safety Zone B, approximately eight acres, only two lots would be allowed, or considering an average of three persons per household, six people would be allowed to "occupy" those eight acres affected. If the eight acres affected were to be developed at Comprehensive Guide Plan densities allowable for Low Density Residential development at 2.5 units per acre, approximately 20 units, or 60 people would be allowed to "occupy" the affected acreage. However, if the affected acreage was allowed to be developed at the densities allowable for High Density Residential development which permitted up to 17 units per acre according to the Comprehensive Guide Plan, then a multiple family structure for approximately 120 people (15 people per acre, multiplied by eight acres) would be allowed by MAC regulations. Planner Enger stated that it appeared that the multiple family development would be acceptable to MAC, but the City's standard single family development of the property would not, despite substantial difference in density between the two. He added that it was unclear whether the proposed MAC regulations for Safety Zone B meant that each land use shall be developed on no less than three acres, or that each building, or structure, shall be on a site of no less than three acres. He stated that it was Staff's opinion that the location of Safety Zone B was somewhat arbitrary in that planes did not fly strictly within the designated Safety Zone boundaries. Planner Enger pointed out that the two most critical questions for the • Commission were: 1) How is this site impacted by the MAC designation of Safety Zone B; and, 2) Should this site be developed in such close proximity to the landfill . Staff presented different development alternatives for the property with the Safety Zone B and Park and Open Space areas eliminated from the developable acreage. The proposed alternatives would reduce the Planning Commission Minutes 14 November 24, 1986 number of units to be developed on the property. Hallett asked about the proposed ownership for the area designated as Park, Open Space. Planner Enger stated that this had not been decided. He noted that the purpose of this area being designated as Park, Open Space was to provide for a buffer to the landfill. Hallett stated that he felt that if the property was designated as a buffer for purposes of protection from the landfill, or the airport, that the landfill owners, or the airport, should be prepared to purchase the property and not have the property become a burden to the current owners, preventing them from developing their property to its highest and best use. Reubling asked if there was any possible City use for the eight acres in question. Planner Enger stated that the City had no need of the property for any purpose such as park development, etc. Anderson asked what would happen if the landfill closed. Planner Enger stated that there possibly would be more "usable" land after the closure of the landfill. At one time, a golf course had been proposed for the final use of the landfill property. However, a question still remained as to what an appropriate and safe final use of the landfill property would be. He noted that the City was currently considering ballfields for the final land use to meet the City's needs for these facilities in this area. Mr. Krueger stated that the use of density transfer should be considered from the point of view of the natural resources on the property; for example, it would likely be necessary that many more trees would need to be removed if density was transferred to the northern portion of the property because this portion of the property was so densely treed. Mr. Krueger noted that it would difficult to provide for clustering of units due to the density of the trees, also. Chairman Schuck expressed concern regarding whether the Commission should act on the proposal at this time considering the unanswered questions with respect to the landfill , airport, and trees. He stated that he felt it would be difficult to develop the property to its highest and best use without these questions being answered. Chairman Schuck added that he concurred with other Commissioners regarding the statement that the restrictions of the landfill and/or the airport Safety Zone B designation should not be the burden of the land owners, but that other alternatives should be explored in order to allow for development of this property. Mr. Krueger stated that the proponents would be willing to work with Staff on any of the alternative site plans, or variations thereof, in order to mitigate the concerns of the Commission. Gartner stated that she felt it would be a mistake to do anything with the south half of this property without knowing what outcome of the landfill litigation is at this time. Anderson stated that he concurred with Gartner. Hallett stated that he felt a compromise could be reached in order to allow the property owners to develop the property. He stated that he felt the landfill owners, the Metropolitan Airports Commission, or the City, should be prepared to purchase any property that could not be developed due to any Planning Commission Minutes 15 November 24, 1986 • restrictions placed on the property by any of these agencies. Bye stated she did not feel the City should "invite" problems to this new neighborhood by approving a development that was located too close to the airport, or landfill . She stated that she did not feel the City should place itself in the position of inviting such complaints, either, if it was known in advance that problems existed. Bye added that she felt answers to the airport and landfill questions were needed prior to recommending any action on this item. Ruebling stated that he concurred with Bye regarding allowing development in an area where problems were anticipated. He stated that also concurred with Hallett with respect to the owners of the property being allowed to develop their property, and with the suggestion that any agency denying the development being required to purchase the property in question, instead of placing such a burden on the landowner. Mr. Denny Daugaard, 12390 Surrey Street, stated that his main concern was the type of development, that the property be developed as single family, instead of some form of multiple residential development. He noted that he was happy to see that the trees were being preserved. Mr. Daugaard asked about the proposed value of the homes. Mr. Krueger responded that the homes would be in the $125-150,000 range. Mr. Arvid Schwartz, Countryside Investments, stated that the proponents were concerned about the various interpretations of what was allowable in terms of development upon this property. He stated that they were willing to cooperate with the City and other agencies, but that it was difficult to do without knowing what the restrictions were on the property. Mr. LeRoy Jedlicka, 12501 Pioneer Trail, one of the proponents, stated that his portion of the property did not have a problem with debris from the landfill . He added that, since 1968 when he moved to this location, he had been bothered by only one airplane "buzzing" his property, but otherwise would not complain about airport noise. Mr. Tom Thoensen, 9549 Yorkshire Lane, stated that, as a pilot, he flew over this property on approach to Flying Cloud Airport. He stated that he felt the airport was an asset to the City and that perhaps the property should be considered for other than residential development. Mr. Stan Hamerski, representing George and Marge Jeppeson, part-owners of the property being reviewed, indicated the concern of the Jeppesons for the "developability" of the property. He stated that they felt the property should be purchased by any agency that would not allow it to be developed due to any restrictions. Hallett stated that it may be appropriate for all three groups, the City, MAC, and the landfill owners, to purchase this property. Planner Enger reiterated that the Safety Zone B regulations had not been adopted by the City, therefore, those restrictions were not legal requirements of this development. He stated that Staff's opinion was that the appropriate use of the property would be single family residential , with Planning Commission Minutes 16 November 24, 1986 the interpretation of the density imposed by Safety Zone B regulations used as a minimum size of the overall land use, instead of the minimum size of lot for each structure. Planner Enger stated that the next question for the Commission to answer would be whether it made sense to place homes within the area designated as Safety Zone B. He stated that there appeared to be room for compromise between what MAC wanted and what the City would require of the developer. With respect to the landfill , Planner Enger pointed out that there had been no resolution of this matter as of this point in time. He stated that there were currently no ordinances in effect which prohibited development adjacent to the landfill . He stated that Staff was looking for direction from the Commission on both of these items with respect to this development. Planner Enger discussed options available to the City and the developer regarding the property. Density transfer was one of the options discussed. There was also the possibility that the proponents could develop only the north half of the property at this time, with the south half to be developed upon resolution of the two issues. He stated that it was likely that the Safety Zone B regulations would be adopted by the City in some form, or another, within the near future. As a point of clarification, Planner Enger stated that the City did not derive very much revenue from the airport. The revenue received by the City from the landfill was used for things other than the purchase of property, as well . Planner Enger pointed out that the owners of the landfill had already purchased property under these conditions, where development may not be suitable due to the proximity of the property to the landfill . He stated that it was Staff's opinion that there was rationale for one, or both of the groups (MAC and BFI) to purchase a portion of this property. Gartner stated that she felt it would not represent "good planning" to place single family homes within the designated Safety Zone B area of the airport, or within such close proximity to the proposed landfill expansion. Reubling stated that he concurred. Hallett stated that he, too, concurred with Gartner. He added that he felt it was important to provide direction to the proponents at this time regarding development of the property and what type of development would represent "good planning" of the property. Gartner stated that she did not feel that it was- clear whether these issues could be resolved at this time, or in the near future. Chairman Schuck stated that he felt it was possible that a compromise solution could be reached. He suggested that the proponent might work with . the City Staff to explore possibilities for compensation of any portion of the property which was designated as "undevelopable." Bye stated that she would prefer to see development of the property kept to the north portion of the land as much as possible. She added that she, too, Planning Commission Minutes 17 November 24, 1986 would encourage purchase of the property by the owners of the landfill and/or MAC, if they were responsible for restrictions of development for the property. Mr. Krueger asked if the Commission would consider a positive recommendation for the development, if all matters except the landfill and airport issues were resolved. Chairman Schuck stated that he felt the landfill and airport issues were the main considerations regarding development of this property, not the trees, or site plan relationships as was often the case. Gartner stated that she would not be in favor of development of the south half of the property, if the proponents did return without the landfill and airport issues resolved. Reubling asked if County Road #1 was of adequate capacity to handle the traffic projected from a development of this size. Planner Enger stated that it was of adequate design capacity. He added that Staff would be working with the Hennepin County Transportation staff to determine the need for turn lanes and bike trails as necessary. He pointed out that the most significant problem was the number of churches along County Road #1 at this time, but that the City and County were working on plans for widening of the road to four lanes as needs indicated. MOTION: Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Reubling, to continue this item to the January 12, 1987, Planning Commission meeting, pending receipt by the city and review by the Staff of additional information regarding the airport and landfill issues as affect this proposed development. Bye stated that she was reluctant to support the proposed Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Public, Open Space to Low Density Residential given the Safety Zone B considerations. Anderson stated that he concurred. Motion carried--6-0-0 D. EDEN POINTE, by Welsh Companies, Inc. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 60.86 acres, Planned ' Unit Development District Review on 60.86 acres with variances, Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 Park on 2.84 acres into one lot for construction of a 32,700 square foot office/warehouse building. Location: West of Flying Cloud Drive, east of Highway #169. A public hearing. Mr. Paul Dunn, Welsh Companies, reviewed the proposed development with the Commission. He stated that this project, along with the Computer Depot development, brought the amount of traffic from the overall Planned Unit Development for the Wilson Ridge Planned Unit Development down 60% from what was originally proposed for this area. Therefore, the project was in compliance with the BRW Traffic Study of 1985, as required by the City. Mr. Darrell Anderson, architect for proponent, reviewed the elevations and site plan for the property. Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Planning Commission Minutes 18 November 24, 1986 Report of November 21, 1986, with the Commission. Other than standard considerations for utilities, erosion control, and park dedication, Staff also enumerated concerns regarding the adequacy of the landscape plan along the north property line and along Highway #169, the fence along the south property line, exterior materials, lighting, and signage. Chairman Schuck asked for comments, or questions, from members of the audience. There were none. MOTION 1: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Reubling, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--6-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Reubling, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Welsh Companies, Inc., for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment of the Wilson Ridge PUD for 60.86 acres, for construction of a 32,700 sq. ft. office/warehouse to be known as Eden Pointe, based on plans dated November 20, 1986, subject to the • recommendations of the Staff Report dated November 21, 1986. Motion carried--6-0-0 MOTION 3: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Welsh Companies, Inc., for Planned Unit Development District Amendment of the Wilson Ridge PUD for 60.86 acres, with variances, and Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 Park for 2.84 acres, for construction of a 32,700 sq. ft. office/warehouse to be known as Eden Pointe, based on plans dated November 20 1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated November 21, 1986. Motion carried--6-0-0 E. TECHNOLOGY PARK 7TH, by Technology Park Associates. Request for Zoning District Amendment within the Office District on 3.74 acres for construction of a 27,700 square foot office building. Location: East of future Golden Triangle Drive, north of Nine Mile Creek. A public meeting. Mr. Brad Hoyt, proponent, reviewed the proposed development with the Commission, explaining that this was a "scaled-down" version of the previous proposal for Office use on this property. He pointed out that there would be a connection to the Tech Park 6th Addition parking lot for purposes of • additional fire and emergency vehicle access, which was a concern of the Commission with the previous proposal on this property. Mr. Hoyt stated that he had no difficulty with the recommendations of the Staff Report of November 21st, and would work with Staff to meet those requirements. Planning Commission Minutes 19 November 24, 1986 Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report of November 21, 1986, with the Commission. Other than the standard concerns regarding utilities, erosion control, and park dedication, Staff expressed concern regarding a grading plan change for a 22/1 slope adjacent to Nine Mile Creek, the addition of a five-foot wide concrete sidewalk connection from the building to the sidewalk along Golden Triangle Drive, staking of the grading limits for tree protection, a tree inventory for the property for purposes of determination of the need for tree replacement during, or after, construction, and submission of exterior materials, mechanical equipment screening plans, signage, and lighting plans for Staff review prior to construction. Chairman Schuck asked for comments, or questions, from members of the audience. There were none. MOTION: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Technology Park Associates for Zoning District Amendment within the Office District on 3.74 acres for construction of a 27,700 sq. ft. office building, based on palns dated October 24, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated October 24, 1986. Motion carried--6-0-0 • IV. OLD BUSINESS None. V. NEW BUSINESS None. VI. PLANNER'S REPORT Height Ordinance Planner Enger reported that Staff was working on an ordinance with respect to height of structures in relationship to the setbacks to the structures from the public roads. This would be presented to the Commission for their review in the near future. VII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Anderson, seconded by Gartner. Chairman Schuck adjourned the meeting at 11:00 p.m.