Loading...
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.