Planning Commission - 10/23/1989 AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, October 23, 1989
7:30 p.m.
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairperson Julianne Bye, Richard Anderson, Tim Bauer, Christine
Dodge, Robert Hallett, Charles Ruebling
STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen, Senior
Planner; Don Uram, Assistant Planner; Deb Edlund, Recording
Secretary
Pledge of Allegiance -- Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
III. MINUTES
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
*NOTE: THE TIMES LISTED BELOW ARE TENTATIVE, AND MAY BE SIGNIFICANTLY EARLIER, OR LATER
THAN LISTED.
7:35 A. JAMESTOWN PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, by Tandem Properties. Request for
Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to
iNeighborhood Commercial on 5.59 acres and from Low Density Residential to
Medium Density Residential on 12.16 acres, Planned Unit Development
concept Review on 60.79 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on
60.78 acres with waivers, Site Plan review and Zoning District Change from
Rural and R1-22 to RM-6.5 on 12.16 acres, Zoning District Change from
Rural to R1-13.5 on 37.65 acres, Preliminary Plat of 60.79 acres into 17
townhouse lots, 60 single family lots, 2 outlots and road right-of-way,
Environmental Assessment Worksheet Review on 60.79 acres for a mixed use
development to be known as Jamestown. Location: Southeast quadrant of
184th Avenue and Dell Road. This project to be continued to November
13th.
7:40 B. CHURCH OF JUBILEE, Request for Site Plan Review on 9.35 acres with
variance to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals for construction of a
3,000 square foot addition.
8:15 C. BLUFFS EAST 7TH ADDITION, by Hustad Development. Request for Guide Plan
Amendment and Planned Unit Development District Review on 186 acres, Site
Plan Review and Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 on 7.6 acres,
Preliminary Plat of 12.15 acres into 26 multi-family ltos, one outlot, and
road right-of-way. Location: West of County Road 18 and north of Bluff
Road.
9:00 D. ALPINE CENTER, by Lariat Companies. Request for Planned Unit Development
• District Review on approximately 18 acres, Zoning District Change from
Rural to C-Reg-Ser and Site Plan Review on 3.56 acres for construction of
a 29,700 square foot retain center. Location: Northeast corner of
Prairie Center Drive and Commonwealth Drive.
9:30 E. MINNESOTA VIKINGS INDOOR PRACTICE FACILITY, by Kraus Anderson Construction
Company. Request for Planned Unit Development District Review on 15 acres
with waivers, Site Plan Review and Zoning District Amendment within the I-
2 Zoning District on 4 acres, Preliminary Plat of 15 acres into 1 lot for
construction of an indoor football practice and training complex.
Location: 9520 Viking Drive.
V. OLD BUSINESS
VI. NEW BUSINESS
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVED MINUTES
MONDAY, OCTOBER 23, 1989 7:30 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7600 Executive Drive
COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chairperson Christine Dodge,
Richard Anderson, Tim Bauer, Robert
Hallett, Charles Ruebling, Doug
Sandstad
COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Julianne Bye
STAFF MEMBERS : Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Dan
Uram, Assistant Planner; Scott Kipp,
Planner; Deb Edlund, Recording
Secretary
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
I . APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION:
Ruebling moved, seconded by Bauer to approve the Agenda as
published . Motion carried 4-0-0.
II . MEMBERS REPORTS
III . MINUTES
1 . Minutes of the. August 14, 1989 Planning Commission Meetin
_{Continued- from the October 10 1989 Meeti,nq}
MOTION:
Ruebling moved, seconded by Dodge to approve the Minutes
of the August 14, 1989 Planning Commission Meeting as
published . Motion carried 2-0-2 . Sandstad and Bauer
abstained.
2. Minutes of the October 10 1989 Planning Commission
Meeting
MOTION•
Sandstad moved, seconded by Bauer to approve the Minutes
of the October 10, 1989 Planning Commission Meeting as
published. Motion carried 4-0-0 .
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. JAMESTOWN PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, by Tandem Properties .
Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low
Planning Commission Minutes 2 October 23, 1989
• Density Residential to Neighborhood Commercial on 5. 59
acres and from Low Density Residential to Medium Density
Residential on 12 .16 acres, Planned Unit Development
concept Review on 60 . 79 acres, Planned Unit Development
District Review on 60.78 acres with waivers, Site Plan
review and Zoning District Change from Rural and R1-22 to
RM-6 . 5 on 12 .16 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural
to R1-13. 5 on 37 . 65 acres, Preliminary Plat of 60. 79 acres
into 17 townhouse lots, 60 single family lots, 2 outlots
and road right-of-way, Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Review on 60 . 79 acres for a mixed use development to be
known as Jamestown. Location: Southeast quadrant of
184th Avenue and Dell Road. This project to be continued
to November 13th.
Franzen reported that proponent had requested a
continuance to the November 13, 1989 Planning Commission
meeting.
MOTION:
Bauer moved, seconded by Ruebling to continue the public
hearing to the November 13, 1989, Planning Commission
meeting. Motion carried 4-0-0 .
B. CHURCH OF JUBILEE, Request for Site Plan Review on 9 . 35
acres with variance to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals
for construction of a 3,150 square foot addition.
Mike Bitner, representing the proponent, presented the
plans for a 3150 square foot addition for classroom space
to the existing building. The addition would be located
on the western side of the building. The existing
entrances would remain in place and two additional
entrances being added . The exterior of the addition would
be stucco with a split face concrete block . The excess
soil would be used to create a berm to screen the parking
area. Six 6-foot evergreens would also be added for
screening.
Bauer asked Bitner to comment on the lighting proposed.
Bitner replied that the proponent was concerned about the
expense involved in removing the existing lights and
recommended that shields be used to direct the light.
Bauer stated that the proponents reply would indicate that
the proponent did not agree with the Staff
recommendations . Bitner replied that Staff had concluded
that the shields would not be effective; however, the
proponent would like to try the shields before going to
the extent of removing the lights .
Kipp stated that the City Council granted an early grading
permit for the church addition. Kipp reported that the
request to use stucco would require a variance . The City
Planning Commission Minutes 3 October 23, 1989
• Code requires faced brick; however, when the existing
building was constructed stucco was an approved material .
Kipp recommended that if NSP could get the shields in
place for the site lighting so that an evaluation could be
made by Staff prior to the City Council meeting, this
would be acceptable to Staff.
Mitch Wonson, 14007 Holly Road, stated that he had had
several communications with City Staff regarding the
lighting problem since its installation in 1986 . Wonson
believed that a hardship had not been demonstrated to
support the request for the exterior building material
variance . He further believed that the current
architecture was not up to City Code and recommended that
the entire building be required to meet City Code . Wonson
stated that the parking lot did not meet City Code
requirements and the ballfields were constructed on a
portion of floodplain and not entirely on the Church 's
property. Wonson stated that a significant amount of
glare was produced by the existing lighting. Wonson added
that he had received a letter from the City stating that
NSP had done everything possible to reduce the glare .
Wonson strongly recommended that the Planning Commission
support the Staff recommendations .
Roger Davis, 6500 Baker Road, Pastor of the Church of
Jubilee, stated that the expansion was needed . Davis
understood the sensitivity of the lighting issue and added
that the Church had tried to work out solutions . He
stated that he had met twice with representatives from NSP
and had hired a lighting contractor to review the
situation. Davis said that NSP had informed the Church
that the shield would eliminate the offsite glare;
however, if this solution did not work he would have no
objection to adhering to the Staff recommendation. Davis
noted that the softball fields had existed when the Church
was constructed and the Church had merely dressed the
fields up.
Kipp stated that the City Code requirement was that all
lighting glare be contained onsite . Kipp recommended that
the lighting glare be mitigated prior to the Building
Permit issuance .
Ruebling asked Davis what the lighting contractor hired by
the Church had done or recommended . Davis replied that
the lighting contractors had adjusted the tilt of the
lights at a different angle .
Sandstad noted that Staff had requested that a lighting
plan be presented, which he did not believe had been done .
Ruebling asked Staff if engineers were not available which
could calculate the amount of glare without the need to
Planning Commission Minutes 4 October 23, 1989
• actually install the shields without knowing if they would
help the situation. Kipp replied that there were many
variances in the field which could affect the light and
added that he would prefer a field inspection after the
shields had been installed . Kipp noted that the pole
light was the critical issue .
Bauer asked the proponent if they were willing to make a
time commitment for the installation of the shields and a
resolution to the lighting problem. Davis replied that
NSP should be able to install the shields within the next
few days . Bauer stated that because of the concern voiced
by a neighbor regarding the lighting he was not in favor
of approving the project based on a nebulous plan. Kipp
replied that the Building Permit could be held until the
lighting issue was resolved .
Franzen stated that shoebox lighting would only light the
area around the building and; therefore, additional
parking lot lighting would be required.
Wonson believed that the site needed a comprehensive site
plan review and was not comfortable with just the use of
shields .
Ruebling asked if the parking lot met City Code
• requirements . Kipp replied that the parking lot meets and
exceeds code requirements for the number of stalls .
Ruebling then asked if there was a drainage problem. Kipp
replied that the Watershed District reviews the drainage
plans, but did not know if this had taken place . Kipp
added that City Code did not require curb and gutter .
Hallett and Anderson arrived at 8 : 05 PM.
Dodge asked what had been done in the past regarding an
addition to an existing building and a request for a
variance on exterior building materials . Franzen replied
that if the addition were the major portion of the
building it would be recommended that the original portion
of the building be brought up to City Code standards.
MOTION 1•
Sandstad moved, seconded by Bauer to close the public
hearing. Motion carried 4-0-0 .
MOTION 2 •
Bauer moved, seconded by Sandstad to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Church of Jubilee for
Site Plan Review on 9 . 35 acres for a 3,150 square foot
addition to the church facility, with variance for
building materials to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals,
Planning Commission Minutes 9 October 23, 1989
Motion carried 6-0-0 .
MOTION 3 •
Sandstad moved, seconded by Bauer to recommend to the City
Council denial of the request of Hustad Development for
Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment to the Bluff
Country Planned Unit Development Concept on 7 . 6 acres for
construction of a multiple family residential development
known as Bluffs East 7th Addition, based on plans dated
October 18, 1989, subject to the recommendations of the
Staff Report dated October 20, 1989 .
Ruebling asked if this was the proper action to take .
Ruebling stated that if the City Council chose to overrule
the Planning Commission and approve a Comprehensive Guide
Plan Change, he wanted the Council to send the plans back
to the Planning Commission for further review. Ruebling
believed that it was important for the City Council to
know that the main issue discussed was the Comprehensive
Guide Plan Change and, based on the denial the plans were
not looked at in greater detail for further comment .
Sandstad moved, seconded by Bauer to withdraw the motion.
D. ALPINE CENTER, by Lariat Companies . Request for Planned
• Unit Development District Review on approximately 18
acres, Zoning District Change from Office to C-Reg-Ser and
Site Plan Review on 3 . 56 acres for construction of a
29,700 square foot retail center . Location: Northeast
corner of Prairie Center Drive and Commonwealth Drive .
MOTION•
Ruebling moved, seconded by Anderson to continue the
public hearing to the November 13, 1989 Planning
Commission. Motion carried 6-0-0.
E. MINNESOTA VIKINGS INDOOR_PRACTICE FACILITY, by Kraus
Anderson Construction Company. Request for Planned Unit
Development District Review on 15 acres with waivers, Site
Plan Review and Zoning District Amendment within the I-2
Zoning District on 4 acres, Preliminary Plat of 15 acres
into 1 lot for construction of an indoor football practice
and training complex. Location: 9520 Viking Drive .
Jeff Diamond, representing the Vikings, stated that the
Vikings had been established in Eden Prairie for the past
8 years and were planning to move their training camp from
Mankato to Eden Prairie . The Vikings would like to
construct a hardcover building to replace the bubble which
was outdated and the artificial turf was severely worn.
Diamond stated that the Vikings had looked at several
hardcover facilities throughout the NFL. The Vikings also
Planning Commission Minutes 10 October 23, 1989
• wanted to prepare a first-class facility for the upcoming
Super Bowl to be held at the Metrodome in 1992 . The
proposed structure would provide a larger field space and
a kitchen area with a cafeteria.
Gary Tushie, representing the proponent, stated that an
additional entrance would be provided from Washington
Avenue for service vehicles . The building had purposely
been set back as far away from the wetlands as possible .
Additional vegetation would be placed along Viking Drive
for screening. The playing field would be a full length
regulation NFL field. The first floor would be composed
of meeting rooms and the 2nd floor would be the eating
area. Tushie presented sight lines depicting the views
from I-494 and Washington Avenue . He added that the
majority of the view would be blocked by the existing
vegetation. The exterior of the facility would be metal
panels with the color proposed to match the existing
facility. The front of the building would have the
Vikings insignia.
Sandstad asked why the addition could not be constructed
of precast concrete as the existing facility. Tushie
replied that because of the clear height requirement, it
would not have the support structure .
. Anderson asked if additional parking spaces would be
needed . Diamond replied that additional parking would not
be necessary and during training camp the players would be
bused in from nearby hotels . Anderson then asked if there
would be any problem with snow on the roof. Tushie
replied that because of the nature of the surface, the
snow would not collect on the roof .
Bauer asked what the life expectancy of this type of
facility would be. Tushie replied that the building would
be usable for 20 to 30 years .
Hallett asked if notices were published and mailed
regarding this item. Uram reported that proper notices
had been mailed.
Bauer asked what the maintenance would be on a structure
of this material . Tushie replied that the surface was
painted and would need to be maintained . He added that
the Vikings took pride in the appearance of the present
structure and would continue to provide quality
maintenance . Bauer then asked the proponent to respond to
the Staff 's recommendation for a partial concrete and
partial glass structure . Tushie replied that the concrete
and glass would require the addition of roof jacks to bear
• the load and he did not see any purpose being served.
Anderson believed that if any additional money was spent
Planning Commission Minutes 11 October 23, 1989
it should be spent on the front of the building facing I-
494 . Tushie noted that the view from Highway 494 would be
minimal.
Ruebling asked if the floor could be lowered. Tushie
replied that the intent was to have the floor elevation
match the existing elevation. Uram added that the floor
elevation was established to keep the basement levels
even. Tushie added that more trees would be lost on the
knoll if the elevation was lowered.
Sandstad asked if the proponent was aware that the use of
metal panels exceeded the City Code and the height was
also in excess of City regulations . Tushie replied that
this was a unique building and served a unique purpose
and; therefore, he did not believe that a precedent was
being set.
Uram reported that Staff was concerned about the precedent
being established . He added that other industrial uses
could utilize this type of facility; however, cost would
be a determining factor . Uram noted that 4 variances
would be required . The building was tucked into the hill
and the major impact would be seen on Washington Avenue .
Uram stated that a large stand of trees existed currently
along Washington Avenue which would aid in the screening.
• The recommendation for a portion of the building to be
glass and block was to reduce the amount of the request
for the waiver, which was at approximately 80o at this
time .
Hallett stated that the precast concrete would be at the
bottom of the building and would not be visible . Hallett
did not see the benefit. Uram replied that the eastern
building elevation would have the major impact . Anderson
stated that the eastern view was were the trees would
provide screening. Uram noted that the trees were
deciduous and would provide screening only in the summer.
Anderson replied that the main traffic on Washington
Avenue was industrial traffic.
Sandstad was concerned about what the facility could be
used for if the ownership of the building were to change .
Diamond replied that the Vikings were not planning on
moving out of Eden Prairie . Tushie added that because of
the clear height of the building, another type of use
would face an enormous heating bill . Sandstad then asked
if the building would be insulated. Tushie replied that
it would be insulated and heated.
Ruebling asked if the 80 foot setback was adequate from
Washington Avenue with the height of the building being 62
feet. Tushie replied that Washington Avenue was a wall of
trees and the Vikings had wanted to maintain the character
Planning Commission Minutes 12 October 23, 1989
of the site.
Sandstad stated that warehouse use would not go in excess
of 20 feet.
Anderson believed that the use was specific and did not
believe that the project would have an impact on adjacent
businesses .
Bauer believed that it was important that the reasons
established to determine the uniqueness of the building
needed to be enumerated.
Anderson asked if a different color for the exterior would
help mask the size of the structure. Tushie believed that
the eggshell white would be the best use.
Hallett asked if a passerby would be able to tell that the
building was metal . Tushie replied yes; however, even if
a portion of the building were to be done in precast
concrete the portion that would be visible would be the
roof which would be metal .
Diamond believed that a passerby would focus on the logo
and would not really have time to see anything else .
. Bauer stated that he was concerned that it would have the
appearance of a large metal pole barn. Diamond replied
that he believed the focus would be on the existing
facility.
MOTION 1:
Anderson moved, seconded by Sandstad to close the public
hearing. Motion carried 6-0-0.
MOTION 2 :
Anderson moved, seconded by Sandstad to recommend to the
City Council approval of the request of the Minnesota
Vikings for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment of
the CNR Planned Unit Development for 72 .9 acres for
construction of an indoor football practice and training
complex, based on plans dated October 18, 1989, subject to
the recommendations of the Staff Report dated October 20,
1989 . The Planning Commission further recommended the use
of the metal panel exterior material based on the
following:
1. That 206 of the building was below grade .
2 . That the natural features along the west and east
elevations helped to block the view.
. 3 . That metal was common and unique to the indoor
practice facilities because of the height and size
required.
Planning Commission Minutes 13 October 23, 1989
The Planning Commission further recognized the following
as mitigating measures for the height variance request:
1. The relationship to other buildings in the area
which included the office tower located directly
to the east.
2. The location near I-494 .
3 . The building was tucked into the hill to reduce
the impact on the south and east building
elevations.
4 . There were natural features such as hills and
trees which helped to block the views .
Motion carried 6-0-0 .
MOTION 3 :
Anderson moved., seconded by Sandstad to recommend to the
City Council approval of the request of the Minnesota
Vikings for Planned Unit Development District Review on 15
acres with waivers and Zoning District Amendment within
the I-2 Zoning District on 4 .0 acres for construction of
an indoor football practice and training complex, based on
plans dated October 18, 1989, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated October 20, 1989
with the additions as noted in Motion 2 . Motion carried
6-0-0.
MOTION 4 •
Anderson moved, seconded by Sandstad to recommend to the
City Council approval of the request of the Minnesota
Vikings for Site Plan Review on 4 . 0 acres for construction
of an indoor football practice and training complex, based
on plans dated October 18, 1989, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated October 20, 1989
with the additions as noted in Motion 2 . Motion carried
6-0-0 .
MOTION 5:
Anderson moved, seconded by Sandstad to recommend to the
City Council approval of the request of the Minnesota
Vikings for Preliminary Plat of 15 acres into one lot for
construction of an indoor football practice and training
complex, based on plans dated October 18, 1989, subject to
the recommendations of the Staff Report dated October 20,
1989 with the additions as noted in Motion 2 . Motion
carried 6-0-0 .
V. OLD BUSINESS
VI . NEW BUSINESS
VII . PLANNER' S REPORT
Planning Commission Minutes 5 October 23, 1989
based on plans dated October 6, 1989, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated October 20, 1989
with the rewording of Item B of the Staff Recommendations
to read: Correct the offsite lighting glare problem
within the confines of the current City Ordinance prior to
the issuance of an Occupancy Permit. Motion carried 4-0-
0 .
C. BLUFFS EAST 7TH ADDITION, by Hustad Development. Request
for Guide Plan Amendment and Planned Unit Development
District Review on 186 acres, Site Plan Review and Zoning
District Change from Rural to RM-6 . 5 on 7. 6 acres,
Preliminary Plat of 12 . 15 acres into 26 multi-family lots,
one outlot, and road right-of-way. Location: West of
County Road 18 and north of Bluff Road .
Mary McCulley, representing the proponent, stated that the
PUD had been approved originally in 1986 . The plan was
for 6 additional units to be developed in the Southeastern
Corner of the project with a density of 2 .1 units per
acre . The proponent believed that this area would be best
served by duplexes . McCulley stated that the Bluff 6th
Addition was already developing the higher priced duplexes
and believed that this addition would complement the Bluff
6th Addition. McCulley noted the significant difference
in grade for the lots to the north and added that
• additional grading beyond the proposed grade plan would
limit the amount of grading allowed on the northern lots .
Walkout homes were proposed along Bluff Road . McCulley
stated that the Staff 's recommendation for smaller
sideyards and having backyards facing sideyards would make
it difficult to construct the proposed duplexes . She
added that the other Staff recommendation to turn all the
units away from Duck Lake Circle would make grading more
difficult . McCulley stated that the upgrade of Bluff Road
and the need for an addition 10 feet for the right-of-way
was severely impacting the development of these lots .
McCulley added that the City was also requesting
additional right-of-way along County Road 18 . She added
that from a marketing standpoint this corner area was more
difficult to develop because of these additional right-of-
way requirements .
Steven Schwieters, Wooddale Builders, presented the plans
for one level townhomes proposed for the development. He
noted that these units would be approximately 2200 square
feet, which was a larger unit than normally proposed for a
townhouse . The price range would be approximately
$265,000 to $310, 000 . Schwieters stated that 13 to 14
units had already been sold in the Bluffs 6th Addition.
He added that there was also a need for a smaller unit of
approximately 1700 square feet with a price range of
$170, 000 to $200,000 . The concepts would be the same for
either size . The units could be developed with either a
Planning Commission Minutes 6 October 23, 1989
slab on grade or a full basement.
Franzen reviewed the Staff recommendations outlined on
Page 4 of the Staff Report. Franzen noted that the
Planning Commission needed to consider if compelling
reasons had been provided to justify the Comprehensive
Guide Plan Change and if the transition provided was
adequate . Franzen added that the Staff recommendations
could not be accomplished without the removal of units .
Sandstad asked Schwieters if consideration had been given
for the development of 4 to 5 single family homes .
Schwieters replied that it had been considered; however,
the proponent had concluded that the twinhomes would
provide a better overall concept for the project .
Schwieters added that because of the steep grades involved
the development of sideyards to backyards would not
provide a good living situation. Sandstad noted that the
original PUD showed the area on Bluff Creek to be R1-9 . 5
and; therefore, the developer had agreed to single family
at one time . Schwieters believed that the needs of the
community needed to be considered and added that the one-
level twinhome blended well with the single family homes .
Bauer asked the proponent to state the compelling reason
for the request for the Comprehensive Guide Plan Change.
• Schwieters replied that the reasons dealt with marketing
potential . He added that this type of home appealed to
those 55 and older, which meant that Eden Prairie would be
able to keep some of the older residents .
Hallett stated that there were already areas zoned for
this type of development . Schwieters replied that the
Creek Knolls area was a massive area and believed that the
mix of expensive twinhomes with expensive single family
homes would work well together .
Scott Gensmer, 9599 Bluff Road, stated that he was
concerned about the transition being provided. The
original proposal was to have single family homes in the
$200, 000 price range. Gensmer was concerned that now the
plans were changing again to twinhomes in the $170, 000
price range . Gensmer did not believe this would provide a
smooth transition.
Hallett believed that Gensmer had been among the residents
who had attended the Planning Commission meeting when the
original proposal was presented and asked Gensmer what his
original concerns had been. Gensmer replied that
originally he had been concerned that the single family
homes proposed would be small and not blend in well with
• the existing neighborhood .
Ruebling asked how the property south of Bluff Road was
Planning Commission Minutes 7 October 23, 1989
. currently zoned. Franzen replied low density residential
with a density of 2 . 5 units per acre . Ruebling then asked
how the section west of the 6th Addition was zoned .
McCulley replied R1-13 . 5. Ruebling asked how the outlot
was zoned . Franzen replied R1-9 .5.
Hallett asked Gensmer if he owned one of the single family
homes . Gensmer replied that he owned a single family home
on a 6 acre lot . Gensmer added that he was not opposed to
the development of the property, but was concerned because
the plans kept changing from what had been originally
planned.
Schwieters stated that the base price of the home would be
approximately $170,000 and with the extras requested by
the owners the price would be higher. Schwieters did not
believe that the development of the twinhomes was a down
scale of the project.
Barry Bain, 9845 Bluff Road, believed that there was a
problem mixing single family and duplexes . Bain stated
that when originally proposed he was opposed to the
development of 1/4 acre single family lots because he did
not believe they would be compatible with the existing
lots which were all . 8 acres or larger. The development
of single family homes would make it less likely to become
• rental property. Bain believed that the units would need
to be in the $200, 000 to $250,000 price range to maintain
the quality of the existing neighborhood. Bain did not
want rental property adjacent to his property. Bain
stated that Hustad had agreed to develop 1/3 acre lots
when the original plan was presented . He added that he
would prefer the development of single family homes on 1/3
acres lots .
Jeff Norgren, 9745 Bluff Road, stated opposition to the
project as proposed . Norgren stated that he preferred
single family homes as originally proposed.
Earl Houchton, 9795 Bluff Road, stated that the original
plan showed 20 units, now the proponent wanted to add and
additional 6 lots . Houchton believed the development was
too crowded . He was concerned about the number of
driveways which would be added to Bluff Road . Houchton
was also concerned about the value of his property
decreasing and about the development of duplexes
continuing on. Houchton stated that he would prefer that
the development be developed as originally planned.
Dodge requested that the Planning Commission first give
consideration to the issue of the change in the
Comprehensive Guide Plan.
Ruebling stated that transition to the property to the
Planning Commission Minutes 8 October 23, 1989
south was not provided . Ruebling added that marketing had
not been used in the past as a compelling reason for a
Comprehensive Guide Plan change . Ruebling believed that
the development was too crowded .
Bauer concurred with Ruebling that market demand was not
an acceptable compelling reason to justify a Comprehensive
Guide Plan Change .
Sandstad believed that the original PUD was reasonably
planned out and did not see a basis for the Guide Plan
change .
McCulley stated that the reason for the Guide Plan change
was because of the additional right-of-way being required
by the City, making it difficult to develop the property
as originally proposed. She added that it would now be
very difficult to achieve the development of 4 single
family R1-13 . 5 units on this property. The complexion of
the corner had changed.
Bauer asked if the request for additional right-of-way was
only a City project. Mcculley replied that it was both a
City and a County project.
Hallett believed that a buffer of R1-13. 5 lots along Bluff
• Road was essential .
Ruebling noted that this proposal was only taking into
consideration 2/3 of the 12 acres . Ruebling recommended
that the proponent consider platting the entire 12 acres
and using a loop road system, which would reduce the
number of driveways onto Bluff Road. Ruebling stated that
the density was too high for the small area.
MOTION 1 •
Sandstad moved, seconded by Bauer to close the public
hearing. Motion carried 6-0-0 .
MOTION 2 •
Sandstad moved, seconded by Bauer to recommend to the City
Council denial of the request of Hustad Development for
Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density
Residential to Medium Density Residential on 1 .7 acres for
construction of 26 multiple family residential units to be
known as Bluffs East 7th Addition, based on plans dated
October 18, 1989, subject to the recommendations of the
Staff Report dated October 20, 1989 and the following:
1. The proponent had not presented compelling reasons
• for the Comprehensive Guide Plan Change.
2. An adequate transition for the homes to the south
of Bluff Road would not be provided .
Planning Commission Minutes 14 October 23, 1989
VIII . ADJOURNMENT
MOTION•
Anderson moved, seconded by Sandstad to adjourn the meeting at
10 : 15 PM. Motion carried 6-0-0.