Loading...
Planning Commission - 07/26/1993 EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES MONDAY, JULY 26, 1993 7:30 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7600 Executive Drive COMIVIISSION MEMBERS: Tim Bauer, Ken Clinton, Cynthia Clish, Katherine Kardell, Doug Sandstad, Edward Schlampp, Mary Jane Wissner. STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE: Lisa-Marie Gualtieri STAFF MEMBERS: Mike Franzen, Senior Planner; Don Uram, Planner; Deb Edlund, Recording Secretary. I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE -- ROLL CALL Sandstad absent. H. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Clinton moved, seconded by Kardell to approve the Agenda as published. Motion carried 5-0-0. *H. MINUTES The Minutes of the July 12, 1993 Planning Commission were tabled until the August 9, 1993 meeting. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PETER ANDREA TWIN HOMES by Peter Andrea. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 on 14.89 acres and Preliminary Plat of 14.89 acres into 30 twin homes lots. Location: Willow Creek Road and Bryant Lake Drive. Franzen reported that Staff had been working with the developer for several months. This meeting is for informational purposes to allow the developer to present the concept plan, for any issues from Commissioner's to be identified, and allow residents to voice concerns and comments. Gary Harris, representing Jim Deanavic; owner and developer, presented concept plans for 30 twin home lots on approximately 15 acres. The price of the twin homes would be within a range from$250,000 to $300,000. The density would be approximately 2 units per acre. Harris said that the developer had spent considerable time with Staff looking at alternatives; this was a difficult site to develop. Harris believed that the present plan was a good plan. He noted that drainage and erosion control were the major issues. Harris reported that the developer had meet with the neighbors several weeks ago and had presented to them the original plan which has 1 undergone several changes with the alignment of the road and moving of units. The developer had listened to the concerns of the neighbors and had intended to meet with the neighbors a second time prior to tonight's meeting; however, that had not been possible. The twin homes would have common lot lines. The lot sizes would vary. Harris showed the location of the existing neighbors whose homes were from 85 feet to 160 feet from the property lines of the proposed homes. Three wetlands were located on the site. Wetland C would not be altered. Wetland B would be filled in and Wetland A would be enlarged to replace the area lost from Wetland B. A formal report from the biologist had been filed with the appropriate agencies. Barr Engineering concurred with the location of the wetlands as proposed. Schlampp asked if the lot sizes included the area of the extended wetland. Harris replied that drainage and utility easements would be within the expanded wetland area. Clish asked if the amount of rain which we have had this summer affected the delineation of the wetland areas. Harris replied that normal plant lines could be determined. Clinton asked how much closer the expanded wetland area would be to the building pads. Harris replied approximately 100 feet. Harris reported approximately 45% of the vegetative area would be disturbed. Harris noted that the developer had tried to keep the road alignment in open areas to minimize loss of trees and disturbance to the vegetation. The top of the hill was at an elevation of approximately 934. The road would be at an 8% grade with a 2% landing area at both the top and bottom of the hill. Harris noted that the cul-de-sacs were longer than what was recommended by City Code. Clinton asked why the steep grade with the sharp curve was used. Deanavic replied that a wider radius had been looked at; however, the present design would disturb the vegetation the least. Harris noted that the grade could have been steeper, but Staff said the maximum allowed is 8%. A 150 degree radius would lower the hill by 10 additional feet and there would be no landing area. Kardell asked what the projected tree loss was for the project. Harris replied that a tree inventory had not been completed at this time. Deanavic replied that the developer had looked at elevation versus vegetation. He added that the neighbors had indicated they wanted the hill to stay. Harris reported that the developer was concerned about erosion control and would develop a construction plan to minimize erosion. Franzen stated that the proof of the concept plan would be based on the tree inventory and the building pads. Schlampp was concerned about the grade. Schlampp questioned if emergency vehicles could maneuver the curve and make the turn in the cul-de-sac. Johnson replied that they were aware of the radius. The curve was a 15 MPH design which should allow a moving van to maneuver the curve and remain in its own lane without any problem. Johnson added that a restriction for parking along the curve would be recommended. Johnson also noted that with a 28' street it could be necessary to restrict parking on one side. 2 Clinton asked how the driveway for the lot in the northeast corner would align with the road. Johnson replied that a joint driveway was proposed. Clinton asked if water run-off would cause any problems for the existing homes. Johnson replied there was a wetland area to the north and a swail would be developed to the left. Harris replied that the drainage flow was not being altered; there was a natural drainage. Schlampp believed that water run-off would increase because of the amount of land being lost for driveways and building pads. Schlampp asked if storm drainage could be used along the back of the lots rather than a swale. Harris replied that storm drainage was set up for the area at street intersections. Harris added that all of drainage would not go over land. Johnson replied that drainage would be directed to the wetland in the southwest corner. Johnson added that the drainage in the backyards would only be from half of the roof. Wissner asked the grade for Victoria Drive. Franzen replied approximately 6 to 7% from the top of the hill. Wissner asked if any problems had been reported, especially in the winter months. Franzen replied that Holly Drive was at an 11% grade and the City sands these areas heavily. Clish noted that letters had been received from residents and they would become part of the public record. Bauer arrived at 7:40 PM. Donald Sorensen, 7121 Willow Creek Road, stated that he had written a letter to the City • expressing his concerns. Sorensen noted that some of the comments in the letter would no longer apply because of the alterations in the plan. Sorensen believed that the property would be tremendously overloaded if developed as proposed. Sorensen noted that he had lived in his home for over 20 years. Sorensen stated that the developer had held a meeting with the neighbors. The main concerns expressed at that meeting were density, topography, tree loss, and animal habitat. Sorensen did not believe that the developer had addressed these concerns at this time. The density had actually been increase from 28 units to 30 units. Sorensen did not believe there was a need for a Guide Plan change. Sorensen asked what had happened to the "0" scale and the density scale. Sorensen stated that he existing neighborhood averaged .68 units per acre and noted that even with R1-44 zoning there would be one unit per acre. Sorensen believed that this project would exceed R1-13.5 densities. Sorensen invited Commissioners to visit the site. He noted that there were deer corridors which went all the way to the Minnesota River Valley. Sorensen believed that this development would destroy the deer population in this area. He added that there were also woodchucks, red fox, and other animals in the area which would be destroyed. Sorensen noted that the street location and grades were modified from the original plan see by the neighbors. The revised plan eliminated 3 of 9 objections noted in Sorensen's letter. Sorensen believed that the change in grade for the road actually would result in more tree loss. Sorensen stated that none of the neighbors would be opposed to a sensitive development. He recommended only 14 to 16 units. Sorensen recommended developing around the natural pond. Sorensen believed that too many units were being proposed for the property. He further believed that the developer wanted to get as many units as possible on the property. Sorensen • did not believe that 2 weeks was adequate time to perform a tree inventory on the property. Sorensen noted that the developer had proposed to restrict parking; the street is only 28' wide and addition parking would need to be created on the lots themselves. Sorensen did not believe 3 this proposal was compatible with the existing neighborhood. He reconfirmed his position that only one unit per acre should be allowed. . Dick Wiltz, 7141 Willow Creek Road, stated that he had written one of the letters submitted to the City and hoped that Commissioners had taken the time to read the letters. Wiltz noted that the developer had said that there was a drainage problem which was a major challenge to them and the environment. Wiltz further noted that the developer had said it was impossible to develop the property without damage to the property. The size of the pads on the print are approximately 2500 square feet. Wiltz believed that it would take a much larger pad to build a $250,000 to $300,000 unit. Wiltz noted that part of the green areas shown by the developer were pastures and not tree areas. Wiltz stated that from his home he will be able to see the 3 story buildings (he would be looking at the back of the buildings). Wiltz believed that erosion on the hill would be constant challenge. Wiltz summarized his concerns as; building pad size, viewing a wall of houses, and run-off. Wiltz stated that the developer started conversations with neighbors and them quit. Dan Grote, 7061 Willow Creek Road, stated that there was a substantial pond on the site. Grote said that he did not use fertilizers on his lawn to preserve the pond for the wildlife. Grote was concerned about the run-off. Grote noted that all of the homes on.Willow Creek Road were on wells and did not want the water integrity compromised. Grote wanted to see some of the green area and trees preserved as a buffer between the two neighbors. Grote believed that this was a unique piece of property and should be treated as such. James McNeill, 7257 Willow Creek Road, stated that his lot was lower and he would be looking up the valley; he would be looking up at rows of houses. McNeill stated that another main . concern was the problems with drainage. McNeill believed that the Commission should take a careful look at this proposal. McNeill concurred with previous comments by other neighbors. Elaine Sorensen, 7126 Willow Creek Road, stated that they had subdivided their property a few years ago and could have developed the property with a higher density but, they chose to preserve the land. Sorensen said that the neighbors in this area take care of their homes, the land, and the lake. Sorensen understood that the land would be developed some day. Sorensen noted that when Super Valu was proposed the neighbors were allowed to make comments to the developer; she considered Super Valu a good neighbor. Sorensen stated that the hill would be the only barrier between their homes and the development. Sorensen believed that the City should protect the existing home owners more than a developer who will come in, make money on the property, and then leave. Sorensen further believed that the land deserved a sensitive development and encouraged any of the Commissioners who were interested to visit the neighborhood. George Tangen, 7034 Willow Creek Road, stated that he had gone through a subdivision process in the 1970's and was sensitive to the neighbors. Tangen added that he had worked to create a development to save the topographical features. Tangen supported the comments by his neighbors who spoke before him. Tangen believed that it was important for the City to watch closely the development south of Highway 212; the area is heavily congested because of development. Tangen further believed that part of Eden Prairie should be preserved and that Bryant Lake was a major amenity. Tangen believed that at least one part of the northeast quadrant should be preserved. 4 Wissner asked Franzen exactly what action was expected of the Commission this evening. Franzen replied that this was a concept plan only; the Commissioners should state if you feel this is an appropriate plan or not and outline issues which need to be addressed. 10 Wissner stated that she was uncomfortable with twin homes. Wissner would like to see a different form of development. Wissner asked if there would be a homeowner's association. Harris replied yes. Franzen noted that from the comments from the neighbors it would be important to be sensitive to the property. Wissner stated that she was also concerned with the steep grade. Kardell stated that she was not concerned with a twin home concept. She was concerned with tree loss and added that without a tree inventory it was hard to determine exactly what the percent would be. Kardell believed that the main concentration of trees would be in the building area. Kardell believed that the density would be acceptable if the homes were placed correctly; however, without knowing the exact pad size it was also difficult to determine. Kardell believed that drainage was an issue with infill projects and the existing neighbors needed to be protected. Kardell was not concerned with the 8% grade. Schlampp stated that he had spent time at the site today. Schlampp believed that the cul-de-sac would create problems with an 8% grade; it would be difficult to stop people from parking on the street. Schlampp also believed that the density was too high. Schlampp believed that single- family homes could be developed; twin homes were more massive than single-family. Schlampp • was concerned about drainage. Schlampp believed that the project could be developed but the developer and Staff needed to listen closely to the residents. Clinton was concerned that cooperation was started and somehow lost along the way between the developer and the residents. Clinton concurred with the neighbors that the developer needed to be sensitive to the property. Clinton recommended that the developer meet again with the neighbors. Clinton was concerned about the grade. Clish stated that she shared the residents and Commissioners concerns regarding drainage. Clish added that she was also concerned about the number of units but not the twin home concept. Kardell asked if a two week continuance would be long enough. Franzen replied that it would be a lot of work; however, if the plan was not ready it could be allowed another continuance. Franzen believed that it was imperative that the tree inventory and grading plan be done before the next review by the Commission. MOTION 1: Kardell moved, seconded by Schlampp to continue the public hearing to August 9, 1993. Motion carried 6-0-0. 5 B. BRYANT LAKE PARK by Hennepin County Parks. Site Plan Review within the Rural Zoning District on 167.6 acres. Location: West of Rowland Road, north and east of Bryant Lake. Uram introduced Doug Bryant, superintendent of Hennepin County Parks. Bryant introduced Alex Meyer, landscape architect, John Barton, Tom McDowell and Barb Fisher, who would all be available for questions. Meyer presented the plans for the 167 acre park. The park would be developed in 3 phases. The first phase would be to construct the entrance road, boat launch and parking area, beach, maintenance building, and to develop one bike/hike loop through the beach area. Construction would begin this fall if the plan is approved. Phase II would be picnic areas and additional bike/hike trails. Phase III would be the development of an additional picnic area at the top of the hill. In Phase I, the entrance would be developed with double wide lanes. Once the 20 boat parking spaces were filled, no additional boats would be allowed into the park until a spot opened up. The beach area would have a boat rental area, concession stands, and changing rooms. The maintenance building would be within the park and was typically located close to the entrance. Meyer stated that he had met with residents who were concerned about the view of the maintenance building. Meyer added that the County could not justify the cost to move the building. The landscape and grading should screen the building from the residents view. The building would be located approximately 300 feet from Rowland Road; the closest homes being 450 to 470 feet from the building. Permits have been submitted to the DNR and Corp of Engineers for approval. • Kardell asked what size trees would be used for screening. Meyer replied that 2 to 3 earth berms would be created, along with 40 conifers approximately 4 to 6 feet in height when planted. Meyer noted that the residents would be looking at the roof line because of the differences in grades. Schlampp asked if a portion of the runoff from the driveways would not go through the N.U.R.P. ponds. Barton replied there would be a 102 LB phosphorus load with the NURP pond and 108 LB without the pond. Barton added that 25 acres in the picnic area would discharge into 2 existing N.U.R.P. ponds. Barton stated that the runoff would be mostly roadway drainage and in terms of water quality would be insignificant. Uram believed that the maintenance building could be adequately screened. Due to the high cost to move the building, Staff recommends that it be constructed in the location as presented. Uram noted that there were other means available to handle sedimentation other than N.U.R.P. ponds. He added that a number of retaining walls would be needed and a modular block would be used. Uram noted that the changing shelter was within 70 feet of the lakeshore which would require a variance from the Shoreland Ordinance. Schlampp asked if the Commission approved that project if there was assurance that a collection facility would be provided. Meyer replied that a sump manhole with a skimmer was proposed. Kardell stated that she would like to see a tree inventory for Phase II and III and asked what the 0 timing would be for those phases. Barton replied that a timing schedule was not available at this time due to a lack of funding. 6 Ari Fuad, 6645 Cherokee Trail West, stated that his home would look down the entrance road. He believed that this was a desecration of the land. Fuad stated that this was an untouched wilderness area that had an existing entrance road. Fuad believed that the road location proposed was simply for convenience of development. Fuad believed that the most dense portion of the development was in the most beautiful portion of the property. Faud would like to see a plan which would take better advantage of the natural beauty of the property. Norma and Larry Schah, 6533 Rowland Road, stated that they had been in their home for less than 2 years; they had the home with the deck on top of the garage, which would be directly across from the maintenance building. Schah's did not believe that the screening proposed would help them. Schah further believed that the residents which paid the taxes should have top priority. Schah stated that they had purchased their home because of the aesthetics. Schah understood that there would be garbage collection and snow removal equipment located at the maintenance building, which they would not care to look at. Schah concurred with Fuad that there was a lot of development proposed in a small area. Schah believed that the wildlife would be run out of the area. They were concerned about the site lines and environmental issues. Clinton asked the Schah's if they had a view of the lake at this time. Schah replied no. Elaine Sorensen, 7121 Willow Creek Road, stated that every year the rumor starts that motorized boats will be eliminated on the lake. Sorensen questioned why the State would spend this much money on a lake without boat traffic. Barton replied that he could not answer the question about elimination of boat traffic at this time; a lot would depend on the City and storm drainage. Barton noted that Hennepin County Park Commission was a natural resource based organization. George Tangen, 7034 Willow Creek Road, stated that he lived on the lake approximately 300 feet from this property. Tangen believed that all of the attention seemed to be on the entrance and maintenance building. Tangen stated that he was concerned about the area near the lake; he requested that the City be vigilant in monitoring the tree removal. Tangen was also concerned about the density in such a small area and about the water quality of the lake. Bauer asked for clarification on garbage collection. Bryant stated that garbage would not be stored at the maintenance building. He added that garbage was typically picked up on a weekly basis, but could be picked up daily if necessary. Clinton asked why the new entrance road was designed in lieu of the existing entrance. Bryant replied that they were trying to control operating costs and to centralize operations. Bryant did not believe the existing road would serve the park well. Meyer replied that the existing road was too narrow and to make it a two lane road would disturb more vegetation and require more grading than the proposed design. Meyer added that the grade for the existing road would be approximately 7%. Meyer stated that the site lines on Rowland Road at the old location were poor. Wissner asked how many people would use the park on a hot day. Fisher replied that after 2 years of development it was projected that between 400 and 500 people would use the park. Wissner asked if Fish Lake was comparable in size to Bryant Lake. Meyer replied that Bryant Lake was larger but there was already a lot of the property developed around the lake. Meyer . added that the park was projected to operate as a 3 season park at this time. 7 Clinton asked where the snow removal equipment would be stored. Meyer replied that the vehicles would come over from Highland Park; equipment would not be stored at this site. Clish stated that Bryant Lake was very weedy and questioned if people would really use the lake. Meyer replied that Bryant Lake was one of the best in the Hennepin County Park system for clarity. Meyer concurred that there was a weed problem; a fiber blanket would be used on the beach area to reduce the weeds. Bryant added that water quality was actually improved in areas where the fiber blankets were used. Kardell asked how high the hill was where the maintenance building would be located. Meyer replied that the hill was at 932 and the Schuh home was at 937. Meyer added that in time the trees would be approximately 40 feet tall. Fuad believed that less grading would be required if the existing road location was used for the entrance. MOTION 1: Kardell moved, seconded by Wissner to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0-0. Kardell did not believe that the existing road would be as safe as the proposed location. She supported the project; this park had been planned for years. Kardell was disappointed in the trail connections for the area. Clinton was concerned about the view problem; the analysis had been from the deck above the • garage and not from the 3rd floor of the home. Wissner asked if the building were not screened well enough if Hennepin County would address that after construction. Bryant replied that Hennepin County believed that it had addressed the problem. Bryant stated that the Schuh's had been positive to work with. He added that the park would be around for a long time and if there were problems they would try to address them. Bauer supported the project and believed that the experts had addressed the issues. Uram noted that this project would be reviewed by the Park & Recreation Commission next Monday and the City Council next Tuesday. MOTION 2: Kardell moved, seconded by Wissner to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Bryant Lake Park for Site Plan Review within the Rural Zoning District on 167.6 acres based on plans dated July 22, 1993 and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated July 23, 1993. Motion carried 6-0-0. C. BLUFFS EAST 14TH ADDITION by Hustad Development. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 186 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 10.65 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 10.65 acres and Preliminary Plat of 10.65 acres into 24 lots. Location: Bluff Road and Wild Duck Pass. 8 Franzen reported that this project had been previously approved in concept form. He noted that the developer had been able to address some concerns by residents earlier this evening. Beth Simonsted, representing the developer, stated that this site was part of a 1986 PUD. The proposed plan was consistent with the current PUD. All of the lots meet square footage and street frontage requirements. The tree loss was proposed at approximately 21% and 40 caliper inches would be replaced. Simonsted stated that they would replace the trees with boulevard trees which would be guaranteed for 1 year. Simonsted noted that there had been drainage problems where the 3 projects come together and a storm sewer had been added. She noted that there were still some problems; arrangements had been made to meet with these individuals. Schlampp stated that there was a drainage problem with a lot to the north of the proposed project which was noted in a letter from the resident to Staff. Simonsted replied that this was a problem for the builder which she would see that was addressed. Simonsted added that she was not aware of this problem until this evening. Franzen reported that Staff recommended approval; two changes need to be made before review by the City Council. Additional trees need to be preserved and the grading plan needs to be corrected. Franzen noted that regarding the letter from the resident, silt had collected in the storm drain and the City had cleared it out; the developer should work with the homeowner on this further. Schlampp stated that a requirement of the PUD was that a lift station and pump be installed and questioned why this had not been done. Franzen replied that the final grades for Highway 18 and the service road have not been finalized and that may be the reason why it hasn't been done yet. Gale Allen, 10509 Audubon Court, stated that he had spoken with Simonsted earlier this evening. He was concerned about the water buildup in his backyard. Simonsted had agreed to look at swale or storm sewer. Molly Dunning, resident, was concerned about the small backyards on 3 to 4 lots. She noted that she was aware of this when she purchased her home, but wanted to go on record stating the concern. MOTION 1: Kardell moved, seconded by Clinton to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0-0. MOTION 2: Kardell moved, seconded by Clinton to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Hustad Development for PUD Concept Review on 186 acres based on plans dated July 22, 1993 and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated July 23, 1993. Motion carried 6-0-0. 9 MOTION 3• Kardell moved, seconded by Clinton to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Hustad Development for PUD District Review on 10.65 acres based on plans dated July 22, 1993 and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated July 23, 1993. Motion carried 6-0-0. MOTION 4: Kardell moved, seconded by Clinton to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Hustad Development for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 10.65 acres based on plans dated July 22, 1993 and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated July 23, 1993. Motion carried 6-0-0. MOTION 5• Kardell moved, seconded by Clinton to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Hustad Development for Preliminary Plat of 10.65 acres into 24 lots based on plans dated July 22, 1993 and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated July 23, 1993. Motion carried 6-0-0. D. 7901 BUILDING RENOVATION AND PARKING EXPANSION by Smith Architects. Request for Zoning District Change from I-General to I-2 on 0.17 acres and the Preliminary Plat of 9.05 acres into 2 lots. Location: 7901 Fuller Road. • Paul Meyer, representing the proponent, stated that the existing building was being upgraded both externally and internally. The request to replat the property was to gain .17 acres from the property to the south to improve the parking. Parking would be added to meet City Code. Clish asked what renovations were being done. Meyer replied that the exterior of the building had been striped and repainted, the bathrooms upgraded for ADA requirements, and a small addition of a loading dock was being reviewed by Staff. Schlampp asked how much bituminous area would be added. Meyer replied approximately 4000 square feet. Uram reported that Staff recommended approval based on Staff Report. MOTION 1• Schlampp moved, seconded by Clinton to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0-0. MOTION 2: Schlampp moved, seconded by Clinton to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Smith Architects for Zoning District Change from I-General to I-2 on 0.17 acres based on plans dated July 20, 1993 and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated July 23, 1993. Motion carried 6-0-0. 10 MOTION 3: Schlampp moved, seconded by Clinton to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Smith Architects for Preliminary Plat of 9.05 acres into 2 lots based on plans dated July 20, 1993 and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated July 23, 1993. Motion carried 6-0-0. V. MEMBERS' REPORTS Kardell reported that the City Tour had been canceled for tomorrow but Dave Lindahl had stated that City Tours were available whenever anyone was interested. VI. CONTINUING BUSINESS VU. NEW BUSINESS Schlampp recommended that a Staff Engineer be at the meetings. Bauer question how this would affect the length of the meetings. Uram replied that the meetings would be longer. Kardell believed that Staff could adequately answer the questions. Bauer believed that a compromise would be to have an engineer at the meetings when Staff knows there are specific problems. • Schlampp stated that he needed to feel comfortable when approving plan and Staff can't always answer the questions. Clish believed that it was also important to reassure the neighbors. Schlampp stated that water quality and toxic waste issues would become big issues this year. Clinton stated that on the first project this evening, issues came up which the City was not aware of. He added that he would not respect the opinion of an engineer which would answer questions without having done a final analysis. MOTION: Clish moved, seconded by Wissner to have a Staff Engineer present when the Peter Andrea Twin Home project was to return and to see how having an Engineer present would work out. Motion carried 6-0-0. VM. PLANNERS' REPORTS IX. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: 0 Clinton moved, seconded by Wissner to adjourn the meeting at 10:30 PM. Motion carried 6-0-0. 11 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, July 26, 1993 7:00 p.m. COMMISSION MEMBERS: Tim Bauer, Kenneth E. Clinton, Cynthia Clish, Katherine Kardell, Douglas Sandstad, Edward Schlampp, Mary Jane Wissner STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE: Lisa-Marie Gualtieri STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Community Development; Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner;Donald Uram, Planner; Deb Edlund, Recording Secretary I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE -- ROLL CALL H. APPROVAL OF AGENDA M. AIINUTES IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PETER ANDREA TWIN HOMES by Peter Andrea. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 on 14.89 acres and Preliminary Plat of 14.89 acres into 30 twin home lots. Location: Willow Creek Road and Bryant Lake Drive. B. BRYANT LAKE PARK by Hennepin County Parks. Site Plan Review within the Rural Zoning District on 167.6 acres. Location: West of Rowland Road, north and east of Bryant Lake. C. BLUFFS EAST 14th ADDITION by Hustad Development. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 186 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 10.65 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 10.65 acres and Preliminary Plat of 10.65 acres into 24 lots. Location: Bluff Road and Wild Duck Pass. D. 7901 BUILDING RENOVATION AND PARKING EXPANSION by Smith Architects. Request for Zoning District Change from I-General to I-2 on 0.17 acres and the Preliminary Plat of 9.05 acres into 2 lots. Location: 7901 Fuller Road. V. MEMBERS' REPORTS VI. CONTINUING BUSINESS VH. NEW BUSINESS VIII. PLANNERS' REPORTS IX. ADJOURNMENT