Loading...
Planning Commission - 05/13/1991 AGENDA EDEN PRAIlUE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 13, 1991 7:30 p.m. CONDMSION MEMBERS: Tim Bauer, Robert Hallett, Karen Norman, Charles Ruebling, Doug Sandstad, James Hawkins and Katherine Kardell STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Don Uram, Planner; Deb Edlund, Recording Secretary. Pledge of Allegiance -- Roll Call I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA H. MEMBERS REPORTS M. MINUTES IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. CARPENTER NORTH PUD by Donald G. Brauer. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Medium Density Residential to Regional Commercial on 6.2 acres, and from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential on 11 acres; Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 27.2 acres for future development of commercial and multiple residential land uses to.be known as Carpenter North PUD. Location: North of the intersection of Valley View Road and Prairie Center Drive. (A public hearing) B. HIDDEN CREEK by Hidden Creek Development Corporation.- Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 1.8 acres, and from Rural to RM-6.5 on 3.1.acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals; Preliminary Plat .of 6.7 acres into 4 single family lots, 10 townhouse lots and 5 outlots to be known as Hidden Creek. Location: East of County Road 4 at Mere Drive. (A public hearing) C. ROUND LAKE VIEW 2ND AND 3RD ADDITIONS by Zachman Development Company. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on approximately 10 acres; Preliminary Plat of approximately 10 acres into 29 single family lots to be known as Round Lake View 2nd and 3rd Additions. Location: North of Valley View Road, north and west of Duck Lake Road. (A public hearing) Planning Commission Agenda May 13, 1991 Page 2 D. RIVERSEDGE by Tushie Montgomery Associates. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review and Planned Unit Development District Review on 55.5 acres with waivers within the Rural Zoning District; Preliminary Plat of 55.5 acres into 3 single family lots, one outlot and road right-of-way to be known as Riversedge. Location: 9901 Riverview Road. (A public hearing) E. ANAGRAM INTERNATIONAL by Ryan Construction Company. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment to the Edenvale Industrial Park 9th Addition PUD and Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 15.67 acres; Zoning District Amendment within the I-2 Zoning District on 15.67 acres; Site Plan Review and Preliminary Plat of 15.67 acres into 4 lots for construction of a 199,210 square foot office/warehouse building in three phases to be known as Anagram International, Inc. Location: southeast corner of Valley View Road and Executive Drive. (A public hearing) V. OLD BUSINESS VI. PLANNER'S REPORT s VII. ADJOURNMENT r AGMAYI3 s • EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES MONDAY, MAY 139 1991 7:30 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7600 Executive Drive COMMSSION MEMBERS: Tim Bauer, Robert Hallett, James Hawkins, Katherine Kardell,Karen Norman, Charles Ruebling,Doug Sandstad. STAFF MEMBERS: Mike Franzen, Senior Planner; Don Uram, Planner; Deb Edlund, Recording Secretary. ROLL CALL: All Members Present. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION• Hallett moved, seconded by Norman to approve the Agenda as published with the addition of Item V.I; Election of Officers. Motion carried 6-0-0. II. MEMBERS REPORTS M. MINUTES MOTION: Sandstad moved, seconded by Kardell to approve the Minutes of the April 8, 1991 Planning Commission meeting as published. Motion carried 4-0-2. Norman and Hawkins abstained. IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. CARPENTER NORTH PUD by Walter Carpenter. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Medium Density Residential to Regional Commercial on 6.2 acres, and from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential on 11 acres and Planned Unit Development Concept on 27.2 acres for future development of commercial and multiple residential land uses to be known as Carpenter North PUD. Location: North of the intersection of Valley View Road and Prairie Center Drive. (A public hearing) Uram reported that the proponent was in the process of making modifications to • the plans and had requested a continuance. Planning Commission • May 13, 1991 MOTION: Hawkins moved, seconded by Sandstad to continue the Carpenter North PUD to the May 28, 1991, Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 6-0-0. B. HIDDEN CREEK by Hidden Creek Development Corporation. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 1.8 acres, and from Rural to RM-6.5 on 3.1 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals; Preliminary Plat of 6.7 acres into 4 single family lots, 10 townhouse lots and 5 outlots to be known as Hidden Creek. Location: East of County Road 4 at Mere Drive. (A public hearing) Jim Zachman, the proponent, presented the plans for the 6.7 acre development. Zachman noted that the site was negatively impacted by County Road 4, while Purgatory Creek was considered an amenity. The adjacent homes were valued between $100,000 and $200,000. Zachman noted that the price of the homes M planned for this project would be approximately $150,000. The project would consist of 14 units on approximately .5 acre lots. Zachman believed that the neighbors concerns had been addressed. Zachman noted that variances would be required due to the constraints of the area. He further noted that this was an infill project which also added to the challenge of development. The homes would be clustered in the center of the site to help save trees, create more open space, and keep the homes further away from both County Road 4 and Purgatory Creek. Zachman stated that the majority of the landscaping would be along County Road 4 to provide a buffer. Zachman believed that this development would increase the value of the$100,000 .homes and would minimally impact the $200,000 neighborhood. Zachman reported that a homeowner's association would be established to provide exterior maintenance of the homes, grounds and street. The loop street design was preferred by the City's Engineering Department. Zachman believed that because this was an infill 'project a relaxation in the guidelines -should be considered. Zachman further believed that a private street and cluster homes was the only way that this site could be developed with $150,000 homes. He noted that if the development proceeded approximately $40,000 would be added to the 2 Planning Commission • May 13, 1991 City's tax roll. Zachman believed that the development as proposed would achieve the goals of the Metropolitan Council for a mixture of housing types. Hawkins asked what Zachman meant by an infill project. Zachman replied that an infill project was one in which parcels already had city sewer and water. He added that an.infill project was a smaller site scattered throughout larger already developed areas. Zachman believed the importance was that no one had to pay further for improvements for City utilities. Uram concurred that infill projects were important. He reported that technically the.plan as proposed worked well with the property. The questions raised are if the project is an acceptable land use and if multiple housing is acceptable within a single-family neighborhood. Norman asked if the City believed that rules should be relaxed for infill projects. Uram stated that in this case the private road provided a relaxation in the front yard setback requirement. Dr. Peter J. DiBona, 15809 Park Terrace Drive, stated that the zoning to the east was R1-22, in which the lots were actually larger than R1-22. DiBona believed that the zoning being proposed was too radical change. DiBona stated that traffic was already a disaster in this area. DiBona questioned the term "empty-nester" and how the developer could control what type of people would buy the homes. DiBona did not believe that "empty nesters" would necessarily create less traffic in the area. DiBona questioned a 15-foot setback from the front of the house to the street. Uram replied that the setback would be 25 feet from the garage door to the curb. Hallett asked DiBona if he would prefer to see single-family housing rather than landscaping not placed along County Road 4 and the removal of more trees. DiBona replied that he would prefer to see a lower density, this entire area is single-family. Hallett commented that the area would eventually be developed. DiBona believed that any development should match that of the existing neighborhood. Hallett believed that the traffic would be the same with this project as the previously approved project. 3 Planning Commission • May 13, 1991 Gail Beno, 6618 Rainbow Drive, noted that one of the driveways would be lined up with the back of her lot. Beno believed that the project density would devalue her property. Beno noted that natural landscaping toward County Road 4 already existed. Beno asked Zachman if the units would be valued at $150,000 per side or per unit. Zachman replied the value would be $150,000 per side. Beno. concurred with DiBona that "empty nesters" were not attracted to Eden Prairie; she believed that homeowners were attracted to the school systems and the type of homes offered in Eden Prairie. Beno stated that she knew development would occur here; however, she would prefer single-family housing and that the new homes and driveway not be so close to her home. Sandstad noted that the density of the project was approximately 1 unit per .5 acres. Beno believed that the homes should be scattered throughout the entire area and not clustered in the center. Beno also objected to the twinhome concept. Uram noted that these units were actually single family homes which were attached. Hawkins asked if the 1 unit per .5 acres included the outlot property. Uram replied that the calculation for density was based on the gross land area of 6.7 acres. Uram noted that approximately 2 acres was being dedicated to the City. This would leave 14 units being developed on approximately 4.7 acres. Liz Prokos, 6552 Mere Drive, stated objection to twinhome development in this area. Michael Reuter, 6602 Rainbow Drive, believed that from County Road 4 you would see nothing but houses, you would not see any breaks between the homes. This plan is not compatible with the surrounding areas. The density will appear much higher than the existing neighborhoods. Reuter believed that proposal would have negative impact on the existing property values. He noted that the driveway proposed. would also run close to his backyard. Reuter was also concerned about potential water-runoff problems because this development was higher than his property and he already had some water problems. Reuter questioned the development of another exit so close to Rainbow Drive when traffic was already a problem. 4 Planning Commission • May 13, 1991 Hallett asked Reuter how this plan compared to the previously approved plan. Reuter replied that in the previous plan the homes were further away from his home. Sandstad asked Reuter if he understood that the lot next to his home would be a single-family home. Reuter replied that he understood that it was single-family; however, it was still too close to his property. Lou White, 16048 Baywood, stated that he would like to see the property left as natural as possible. White questioned how the total environment for the area would be affected by this development. Uram noted that this plan would have less tree loss and less grading than the previously approved plan. White questioned how this would affect the animals in the area and their natural migration. Uram replied that the City looked at watershed issues, but did not look into the affect on the animals in the area. Doug McChane, 6625 Rainbow Drive, stated that he resented the implication that this was only an either or situation. McChane believed that the basic issue was this has been a long established single-family neighborhood. McChane further believed that the density was too high. McChane objected to the process by which the developer could use the dedication of property and private streets as trade-offs for development. McChane questioned if school buses would travel on the private road. McChane believed that the plan was well put together; however, it was not appropriate for this area. Traffic was another major issue for McChane; Rainbow Drive would be less than 200 feet away from the proposed access. McChane stated that the children in the neighborhood can't get to the neighborhood park because of the existing traffic. He question if there would be public access to the dedicated property and how and who will maintain the dedicated property. McChane noted that in the existing neighborhoods there were no two homes. alike and was concerned about the proposal where all ten homes would look exactly alike. Hawkins referred to a letter submitted by McChane and questioned if the City could enforce the promise that the homes would be occupied by owners and not renters. Uram replied that the City could not enforce that the homes be owner occupied. i 5 Planning Commission May 13, 1991 McChane questioned if this proposal would set a precedent for infill projects throughout all the older neighborhoods. McChane further questioned if development should wait for a more acceptable market rather than force the market. Jerry Kimmel, 6610 Rainbow Drive, believed that all residents moved to Eden Prairie for different reasons. He did not believe that rules should be relaxed for infill projects. Kimmel stated that County Road 4 was already a traffic disaster. Kimmel further believed that any development should be agreeable with the existing neighbors. Mary Olson, 6615 Eden Prairie Road, stated that she had tried to be open minded about the proposed development. Olson questioned how this proposal would actually directly affect some of the residents which had spoken previously. Olson noted that the property was relatively isolated during the foliage season. Olson stated that traffic was already a problem, and Olson added that she had asked the police several times to patrol the road more frequently. Olson stated that she was ambivalent regarding the twinhome concept. Olson questioned how the dedicated property would be maintained. Olson concurred with McChane that the children could not access the park which was suppose to be for their use. Bauer arrived at 8:30 PM. Olson noted that Mr. Zachman had sent out notices for an open meeting discussion regarding the project to allow neighbors to voice concerns; however, no one showed up at that meeting. Olson was concerned that many of the objections were being heard by Zachman for the first time this evening. Ray Stodola, 6625 Eden Prairie Road, stated that he had lived in Eden Prairie since 1913. Stodola noted that he could not see Rainbow Drive from his property and he had driven out to Rainbow Drive and could not see his property from that location. Stodola stated that he could not afford to hold on to the property due to rising taxes. Stodola said that he was getting older and needed to get out from under the property. 6 Planning Commission May 13, 1991 Norman asked if Stodola had tried to sellthe home. Stodola replied that he had tried to sell the home with and without the additional property. Stodola added that only developers were interested in the property. Ed Sieber, 11792 Dunhill Road, stated that he was a realtor who had looked at the Stodola property over 4 years ago. Sieber did not believe that it was possible to sell this as a single-family home site. Sieber stated that he had tried to market this property to those which could develop it properly. He added that the Shoreland Ordinance restricted the amount of developable land. Sieber stated that the term "empty nester" was a reality and a very good market. Sieber also noted that financiers would not allow a rental situation. Sieber believed that this would be a close knit community. Sieber stated that Eden Prairie has approximately 1000 acres of infill properties. Sieber also noted that this project would result in a net gain on the tax revenue, and Sieber strongly urged the Planning Commission to look at all aspects of this proposal. Zachman stated that he already had three very successful attached home projects in Eden Prairie. Zachman believed that this development would have a positive impact on the neighborhood. Norman asked if the two accesses to County Road 4 were not actually the existing driveways. Norman believed that the actual issue was that of additional traffic. Uram replied that the accesses would be in the same locations as the driveways and that Hennepin County had written a letter stating that the accesses were acceptable. Hallett stated that this was a tough site to develop. He did not believe that this area would ever see slow traffic or traffic lights. Hallett believed that in some ways this project was better than the previous plan. Hallett noted that it was evident that the existing neighborhoods did not want twinhomes developed. Sandstad asked if the public would have access to Purgatory Creek. Uram replied that a public access would not be provide and the City would not maintain the property. Dr. DiBona replied that the older established homes owned the land up to the creek and maintained it. DiBona added that the only access to Purgatory Creek was by canoe in this area. 7 Planning Commission May 13, 1991 Hawkins asked if there were conditions which prevented the approved plan in 1988 not to be developed. Uram replied that the developer withdrew the previous proposal. Hawkins added than this was not an either or situation. Norman stated that traffic was difficult in this area now. Norman believed that with further thought there should be a way to develop this property in an appropriate way. Hawkins stated that he had driven to the proposed site prior to the meeting and believed that the development as planned would be an imbalance to the existing neighborhoods. Zachman stated that homeowner's associations were part of a current trend. He added that the owners would assess themselves to maintain the quality of their homes. Zachman stated that attached housing, when well done, was.the more desirable type of market today. Zachman believed that it would be difficult to • develop $150,000 homes if the site was opened up and additional grading done. Bauer stated that while he would not be voting on this issue due to his late arrival he did believe that the rights of the adjacent property owners should be taken into consideration. Bauer further believed that the Planning Commission could not make a decision based on the economic issues of the developer. Norman was concerned about the traffic and questioned if a cul-de-sac would not be a better road solution. Uram replied that he could not say for sure that a cul- de-sac would be the best solution. MOTION 1: Sandstad moved, seconded by Kardell to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0-1. Bauer abstained. MOTION 2: Hawkins moved, seconded by Kardell to recommend to the City Council denial of the request of Hidden Creek Development Corporation for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 1.8 acres and from Rural to RM-6.5 on 3.1 8 Planning Commission May 13, 1991 acres, with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, and Preliminary Plat of 6.7 acres into four single family lots, ten townhouse lots, and five outlots to be known as Hidden Creek based on the following findings: 1) The proposed development is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Guide Plan designation for the property and does not represent the highest and best use of the land. 2) The proposed development is incompatible with the existing surrounding neighborhood uses due to the density of the cluster homes. 3) The proposed multiple family portion of the development would constitute . a "spot zoning" of higher intensity land use at a density of 3.2 units per acre surrounded by existing development at a density of 1.5 units per acre. • Hallett stated that he would vote for the denial of the project with several reservations. He added that more trees would be removed if developed single- family. Hallett stated that in this case he would not have a problem approving a cul-de-sac in this area. Kardell believed that compelling reasons were necessary before rules should be bent to change the Comprehensive Guide Plan. Norman believed that the development was nicely laid out; however, the density was too high. Sandstad stated that he had mixed feelings. He added that he could see the need for this type of housing. Sandstad believed that the topographical issues could justify a Comprehensive Guide Plan Change. Hawkins believed that the residents had stated a clear preference for single-family housing. Hawkins further believed that a zoning change from R1-22 to R1-6.5 was too dramatic. Hawkins believed that it was important to balance all the issues. 9 Planning Commission • May 13, 1991 Ruebling stated that he was concerned with the high density. Ruebling believed approval would be spot zoning. Motion approved 5-1-1. Bauer abstained, Sandstad voted "NO". Ruebling noted that this was the Planning Commission's recommendation and did not prohibit the proponent from going on to the City Council for its review. Zachman stated that he would proceed to the City Council. Zachman believed that the City Council had to develop new standards for infill projects and believed that this development was worth pursuing. Uram noted that the item would be heard at the June 4th City Council meeting. C. ROUND LAKE VIEW 2ND AND 3RD ADDITIONS by Zachman Development Company. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to Rl- 9.5 on approximately 10 acres; Preliminary Plat of approximately 10 acres into 29 single family lots to be known as Round Lake View 2nd and 3rd Additions. Location: North of Valley View Road, north and west of Duck Lake Road. (A public hearing) Zachman stated that the plan had not changed from the original design presented a year ago. The price range of the homes would be between $110,000 and $180,000. The lots would be shallower and wider. Uram reported that Staff recommended approval of the project based on the recommendation outlined in the Staff Report dated May 10, 1991. Hawkins asked what the distance would be between the homes. Zachman replied that the homes could be as close as 15-feet apart. Ruebling asked if the issue of decks on the rear of the homes had been addressed. Uram replied that specific plans were required prior to City Council review. Hawkins asked what type of screening would be provided. Zachman replied the screening would be 6 foot high evergreens. Hawkins asked if the screening had been incorporated as part of the approved plan. - Uram replied yes. 10 Planning Commission May 13, 1991 MOTION 1: Hallett moved, seconded by Sandstad to close the public hearing. Motion carried 7-0-0. MOTION 2: Hallett moved, seconded by Sandstad to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Zachman Development Company for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on approximately ten acres, to be known as Round Lake View 2nd and 3rd Additions, for single family residential development, based on plans dated April 30, 1991, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated May 10, 1991. Motion carried 7-0-0. D. RIVERSEDGE by Tushie Montgomery Associates. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review and Planned Unit Development District Review on • 55.5 acres with waivers within the Rural Zoning District; Preliminary Plat of 55.5 acres into 3 single family lots, one outlot and road right-of-way to be known as Riversedge. Location: 9901 Riverview Road. (A public hearing) Tushie presented the plans for a 3 lot subdivision. An existing home site would remain on the center lot. One access would be provided by an existing road from Riverview Road and an additional access would be added. Tushie believed that the development would have a minimal impact on the area. He added that no retaining walls would be required. Tushie clarified items in the Staff Report. Item 1A; the proponent would provide a written reforestation plan to the City. Item 1 C; the proponent would review the trail easement with the Park and Recreation Commission. Item 1D; the proponent would review the conservancy easement further with Staff. Item 1E; the existing bridge is a 10 ton bridge, the report refers to a road and should actually refer to the bridge. The proponent requested flexibility in the plans for Items 3, C, D & E. Franzen reported that larger lots were required in this area to provide.preservation of the Bluff area. The use of the property is appropriate for single-family homes to maintain the character of the area. Franzen stated that Staff recommended 11 Planning Commission May 13, 1991 approval of the project. Regarding Item 1,A; Staff would like to see the slopes restored and a reforestation plan provided which would list the plant materials to be used. Franzen added that the only way not to fill in the floodplain would be to provide a shared driveway, which the proponent objected to. Item 1,D; this is a standard procedure for area with conservancy easements. Franzen added that Staff did not want the conservancy line too close to the back of the homes and agreed that some flexibility was needed. Franzen stated that there would be some flexibility allowed for items 3- C,D, & E. Franzen noted that Item 3 had a lot of technical items listed. He added that this was being done to let the Planning Commission and City Council know what was being done to assure preservation of the Bluff area. Ruebling questioned the flexibility regarding retaining walls. Franzen replied that Staff wanted the developer to have the opportunity to improve on the plan if possible. Hawkins requested to see an aerial.map of the area. Franzen presented the map to the Planning Commission. Hawkins questioned the impact of the road construction in forming a partial dike. Tushie replied that the Watershed District had stated that the road construction would have a minimal impact on the area. Hawkins asked if the plan had been submitted to the Watershed District. Franzen replied that written approval from the Watershed District would be required before construction could begin. Franzen noted that some filling was allowed in most projects. He added that the majority of the flood plain was within the Minnesota River Valley. Hawkins believed that this item should be continued because there were too many unanswered questions. Hawkins also voiced a concern about the new road construction. Hawkins believed that the plan was moving in the right direction; however, it was not finalized. Tushie replied that an enormous amount of time had been spent with Staff on this proposal and several changes had been made. Tushie added that all preliminary reports had been filed with the appropriate agencies and he did not know what would be accomplished during a continuance. Hawkins asked when the proponent would present the plan to the Park & Recreation Commission. Tushie replied the plan would be presented June 3, 1991. i 12 Planning Commission • May 13, 1991 Larry Fransen, owner, stated that he was very sensitive to the minimum use of the land. Hallett noted that the Planning Commission and the City Council depended on Staff to make sure the details were all worked out. Hallett did not believe that there were any major issues open to warrant a continuance. Helen Fowler, 10315 Riverview Road, asked where the fill would come from and why the area was being filled. Tushie explained the area to be filled. Fowler was concerned about the location of the new road and bridge. Fowler noted that the 22 acres was part of the Fowler property at one time. Fowler stated that there was an easement which allowed her access to the river property and questioned how this development would affect that easement. Tushie replied that no easement was filed with the County. Fowler stated that she was happy to see only 3 lots being developed. Fowler asked again where the fill would come from. Tushie replied that some of the fill would come from the grading of the property and some of the fill would be imported. Fowler questioned the logic for the third road. Hawkins stated that he was concerned about the amount of fill which would be required. Fransen stated that double erosion control would be used. Fransen also noted that in most cases the City requirements were more restrictive than the Watershed District. Hawkins asked if the City could place special restrictions on the quality of the soil to be used. Sandstad replied that a soil analysis would be done. Fowler stated her concern regarding the easement to her river property. Tushie replied that a search of the County records had not indicated that an easement existed; however, he stated that he would look into this item further. Hawkins asked how opposed the proponent was to a shared driveway. Larry Fransen replied that he was very opposed. He believed that a shared driveway was impractical. Fransen further believed that a shared driveway would make the development of the site impossible. He added that this was a difficult area to develop and he had taken a very careful look at the project. Norman believed that the project had been well thought out. . 13 Planning Commission May 13, 1991 Bauer noted that he would abstain from voting on the project due to involvement of his office with the proponent. MOTION 1: Sandstad moved, seconded by Norman to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0-1. Bauer abstained. MOTION 2: Sandstad moved, seconded by Norman to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Tushie Montgomery Associates for Planned Unit Development Concept on 55.5 acres, for single family residential development to be known as Riversedge, based on plans dated May 8, 1991, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated May 10, 1991. Hawkins asked if action by the Planning Commission would relinquish Fowler's rights regarding the easement. Fransen replied that it would not. Motion carried 5-1-1. Bauer abstained, Hawkins voted "NO". MOTION 3• Sandstad moved, seconded by Norman to recommend to the City 'Council approval of the request of Tushie Montgomery Associates for Planned Unit Development District Review, with waivers, within the Rural Zoning District on 55.5 acres, for single family residential development to be known as Riversedge, based on plans dated May 8, 1991, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated May 10, 1991. Motion carried 5-1-1. Bauer abstained, Hawkins voted "NO". MOTION 4• Sandstad moved, seconded by Norman to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Tushie Montgomery Associates for Preliminary Plat of 55.5 acres into three single family lots, one outlot, and road right-of-way, to be known as Riversedge, based on plans dated May 8, 1991, subject to the 14 Planning Commission May 13, 1991 recommendations of the Staff Report dated May 10, 1991. Motion carried 5-1-1. Bauer abstained, Hawkins voted "NO". E. ANAGRAM INTERNATIONAL by Ryan Construction Company. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment to the Edenvale Industrial Park 9th Addition PUD and Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 15.67 acres; Zoning District Amendment within the I-2 Zoning District on 15.67 acres; Site Plan Review and Preliminary Plat of 15.67 acres into 4 lots for construction of a 199,210 square foot office/warehouse building in three phases. to be known as Anagram International, Inc. Location: southeast corner of Valley View Road and Executive Drive. (A continued public hearing) Kent Carlson, representing the proponent, presented a brief history of Ryan Construction and Anagram International. Carlson stated that Anagram International manufactured balloons and was expanding rapidly. The proponent has requested that the building be designed in such a way to provide for further expansion in the future. Jeff Cupca, representing the proponent, presented the plans for the facility. Cupca stated that the proponent had requested an architectural design that would stand out. Anagram International does not have drive-in customers and the main intent of the proponent was to create a pleasing environment for its employees. Cupca added that the proponent had been encouraged to stay away from residential areas, even though the operation was a very clean and quiet one. Cupca stated that the future expansion would take place in two phases. Cupca presented the landscape plans which featured a corner landscape design in the shape of a rainbow of flowers. Sandstad asked if the sidewalk would continue to the north. Cupca replied yes. He added that a 5-foot berm would be provided with several plantings. Cupca stated that the exterior of the building would be white with muted bans of color. The glass would be a tinted gray. Ruebling asked if the temporary walls would look like the exterior wall. Cupca replied yes, the proponent was looking for a maintenance free exterior. 15 Planning Commission • May 13, 1991 Hallett stated that the corporate offices were presently in Edina and questioned if those offices would be moved to Eden Prairie. Carlson replied that the entire operation would .be located at this new location. Hawkins noted that there had been random tree cutting in this area by the City and questioned the reasoning. Fransen replied that he did not know for sure the reason, but would look into this further and advise the Planning Commission. Norman asked if all pollution control requirements would be met. Carlson replied yes, and added that the facility was inspected every year by State inspectors. Carlson also added that this was a very clean operation. Fransen reported that Staff recommended approval of the project based on the recommendations outlined in the Staff Report dated May 10, 1991. MOTION 1: Bauer moved, seconded by Hawkins to close the public hearing. Motion carried 7-0-0. MOTION 2: Bauer moved, seconded by Hawkins to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Anagram International for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment to the overall Edenvale Industrial Park 9th Addition PUD for construction of a 199,210 sq. ft. office/warehouse structure, based on revised plans dated May 2, 1991, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated May 10, 1991. Motion carried 7-0-0. MOTION 3• Bauer moved, seconded by Hawkins to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Anagram International for Planned Unit Development District Review, with waivers, and Zoning District Amendment within the I-2 Zoning District on 15.67 acres for construction of a 199,210 sq. ft. office/warehouse structure, based on revised plans dated May 2, 1991, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated May 10, 1991. Motion carried 7-0-0. 16 Planning Commission May 13, 1991 MOTION 4: Bauer moved, seconded by Hawkins to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Anagram International for Site Plan Review of 15.67 acres for construction of a 199,210 sq. ft. office/warehouse structure, based on revised plans dated May 2, 1991, subject,to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated May 10, 1991. Motion carried 7-0-0. MOTION 5: Bauer moved, seconded by Hawkins to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Anagram International for Preliminary Plat of 15.67 acres into four lots for construction of a 199,210 sq. ft. office/warehouse structure, based on revised plans dated May 2, 1991, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated May 10, 1991. Motion carried 7-0-0. • V. OLD BUSINESS Hallett reported that he had been asked to represent the Planning Commission on a committee for the Major Center Area. At the first meeting the major discussion was on what should be developed in this area, the WalMart site, and a new City Hall site. Hallett noted that nothing was resolved at this time; this meeting was to discuss ideas. Fransen added that this area had the potential to be developed similar to'the new Centennial Lakes project in Edina. A. ELECTION OF OFFICERS MOTION: Hallett moved, seconded by Hawkins to nominate Charles Ruebling for Chairman. Hawkins moved, seconded by Kardell to close the nominations and cast a unanimous ballot for Ruebling as Chairman. Motion carried 7-0-0. • 17 Planning Commission May 13, 1991 MOTION: Hallett moved, seconded by Norman to nominate Doug Sandstad for Vice Chairman. Kardell moved, seconded by Norman to close the nominations and to cast a unanimous ballot for Sandstad as Vice Chairman. Motion carried 7-0-0. MOTION: Hawkins nominated Katherine Kardell for Secretary. Hallett nominated Tim Bauer. Bauer declined the nomination. Sandstad moved, Hallett seconded a nomination for Karen Norman for Secretary. Bauer moved, seconded by Sandstad to close the nominations and cast a • unanimous ballot for Karen Norman for Secretary. Motion carried 7-0-0. VI. PLANNER'S REPORT VH. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Bauer moved, seconded by Hallett to adjourn the meeting at 11:13 PM. Motion carried 7-0-0. 18