Loading...
Planning Commission - 04/11/1988 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, April 11, 1988 7:30 p.m. COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman Ed Schuck, Richard Anderson, Julianne Bye, Christine Dodge, Doug Fell , Robert Hallett, Charles Ruebling STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Don Uram, Assistant Planner; Sue Anderson, Recording Secretary Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call I . APPROVAL OF AGENDA II. MEMBERS REPORTS A. Election of Officers. III. MINUTES IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS (7:35) A. STARRING LAKE 2ND ADDITION, by Red Rock Heights Partnership. Request for Preliminary Platting of 8.3 acres into 13 single family lots within the R1-22 District. Location: North of County Road #1 between Eicholts Addition and Starring Lake 1st Addition. A continued public hearing. (8:15) B. VALLEY GATE 200, by The Helle Partnership. Request for a Site Plan Review within the I-2 Zoning District on 4.9 acres with variances for zero lot line to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals for the construction of a 63,368 square foot office/warehouse. Location: Northeast corner of Golden Triangle Drive and West 74th Street. A public hearing. (8:45) C. SEARS GARDEN STORE, by Sears, Roebuck and Company. Request for Planned Unit Development Amendment Review on 87.75 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review within the C-Regional Zoning District on 87.75 acres with variances for exterior building material , for the construction of a 1,000 square foot seasonal temporary structure for an outside storage garden center. Location: Eden Prairie Center/Sears. A public hearing. (9:00) D. GLENSHIRE, by Associated Investments. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Church to Neighborhood Commercial on 3.5 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 30.6 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 17.3 acres with variances and Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 17.3 acres, Preliminary Plat of 30.6 acres into 56 lots, 2 outlots and road right-of-way for construction of a single family development. Location: Northeast corner of Valley View Road and Edenvale Boulevard. A public hearing. Agenda Eden Prairie Planning Commission April 11, 1988 (9:45) E. TECHNOLOGY PARK PHASE IV, by Technology Park Associates. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on approximately 41 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with variances and Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 on 13 acres with shoreland variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Preliminary Plat of approximately 41 acres into 1 lot and 2 outlots for construction of 162,860 square feet of industrial use in two buildings. Location: West of Golden Triangle Drive, north of Nine Mile Creek, east of Smetana Lane. A public hearing. V. OLD BUSINESS VI. NEW BUSINESS VII. PLANNER'S REPORT VIII. ADJOURNMENT *NOTE: THE TIMES LISTED ABOVE ARE TENTATIVE, AND MAY BE SIGNIFICANTLY EARLIER, OR LATER, THAN LISTED. Eden Prairie Planning Commission April 11,1988 Page 1 NHNLTMS EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, April 11, 1988 7:30 PM MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ed Schuck, Christine Dodge, Douglas Fell, Charles Ruebling, Julianne Bye, Robert Hallett MEMBERS ABSENT: Richard Anderson STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Scott Kipp,Asst. Planner; Steve Durham, Asst. Planner; Sue Anderson, Recording Secretary. Roll Call-Pledge of Allegiance I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The following item was changed: Recommended to move Item II.A. Election of Officers to the end of the meeting in view of the full agenda. MOTION Motion was made by Fell and seconded by Bye to approve the agenda as amended and printed. Motion carried 6-0-0 II. MEMBERS REPORTS None III. MINUTES The following changes were made to the minutes of April 4, 1988. Page 4, Paragraph 10, Line 3 should read: of flood lights, and proponent agreed to that analogy; Page 5, Paragraph 3, delete last sentence; Page 6,Motion 2 last line read: Motion carried 3-1-0; Motion 3 last line should read: Motion carried 3-1-0; Motion 4 last line should read: Motion carried 3-1-0. • Eden Prairie Planning Commission April 11,1988 Page 2 MOTION Motion was made by Fell and seconded by Dodge to approve the minutes of the April 4, 1988, Planning Commission meeting as amended and published. Motion carried 6-0-0. IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. STARRING LAKE 2ND ADDITION, by Red Rock Heights Partnership. Request for Preliminary Platting of 8.3 acres into 13 single family lots within the R1-22 District. Location: North of County Road#1 between Eicholts Addition and Starring Lake 1st Addition. A continued public hearing. Enger reported that this item was continued from the March 14, 1988 meeting due to concerns of the neighborhood regarding drainage and future road connections. The site was zoned RI-22 before public sewer and water was a requirement in this zoning district. Staff met with the neighborhood and the developers to discuss the drainage issue. The neighborhood would not lend much support for the project unless the drainage issue was resolved. The site is zoned R1-22 and the site plan meets code requirements as revised. The Commission considered whether to approve the project based on the site plan's merits, or if the project should be denied as premature development due to lack of public utilities and no solution for storm water management. Proponent, Bill Gilk, presented the issues and concerns of the proposal: 1) zoning and land use; 2) project design;3)storm drainage;4) on-site sewer system;5)water main system; and 6)traffic on Cty Road 1. • After a couple of developer storm sewer proposals, Gilk stated that without concurrence from the neighbors or a storm water solution,they would petition the City to provide a permanent storm pond which would be developed in the next five (5)years. Enger stated the major issue was the storm sewer, and directed additional questions to Alan Gray,City Engineer. Gray reported that the ponding area was for a 30-acre watershed in which there had been no outlet provided. Engineering Staff felt the project should not be approved unless, or until, an acceptable solution to control the ponding elevation was established eliminating any future flooding problems. History of runoff and snowmelt with regard to holding pond capacity was discussed. Jim Oseicowsky, 15381 E. Sunrise Circle, asked proponent or Staff to elaborate on pollution. At the meeting, proponent mentioned that there was concern that additional water would become polluted from storm water drainage and there was concern it would contaminate the wells. He stated that every year that have standing water in his lot. Chuck Steffens, 9081 E. Sunrise Circle, inquired if the storm sewer outflow pipe was needed, why not install it and drain it in another direction. He saw no benefit to himself for his property to be dug up because a developer want to put in a development. He was fine now and did not need a storm sewer. Gray stated that property owners would probably find it desirable to have storm sewer in the future. He stated assessments would probably be determined on an acreage basis, and City would restore his property to the condition it was previously in. • Eden Prairie Planning Commission April 11,1988 Page 3 Steffens concluded that if the developer wants to pay 100% of the cost, he would be in favor of the • storm sewer and the distribution to his property. Louis Wiebold, 15361 E. Sunrise Circle, stated his concern because his backdoor would be 10 feet from the project. He asked how much water would come from the hole if the property drains to the south. Gray explained,,that if.the.new.project produced.30,000 gallons of run-off,then they would increase the capacity of the holding pond to 40-50,000 gallons. Wiebold stated that the water comes from the west like a river,but its not the heavy rains but the thaw in the spring that raises the elevation to 868'. Peter Knable responded that they would direct the pipe to the north due to the elevation, and added the storm sewer should have been put in 15 years ago. R. Eickholt, 15380, 15460, 15480 Pioneer Trail, stated as the developer of the original neighborhood subdivision, he has sold many lots without sewer and water. Why was this developer any different from the rest. Why should the current residents have to may assessments just because his 13 lots do not have suitable drainage. He did not feel that the additional assessment to current owners was justified as they would not have anymore than what they have today. Carolyn Koebel, 9141 E. Sunrise Circle, stated if they are assessed they should receive the service and not pay until that occurs. She also supported lowering the traffic speed on Cty. Road 1. The proposal to have a pump for sewage would not be practical as the area has numerous power outages. • Bye inquired if the storm sewer went forward,would it be a temporary and would the people be assessed again. Gray responded that an alignment would be chosen that would serve in the future as well. Hallett asked if the$36,000 cost was firm. Gray responded it was an estimate, because they have not determined the depth and length of the project. Gilk stated that the request for sanitary sewer was by Staff's request. Proponent felt that had to ask the City to install the storm sewer as the project hinges on a proper storm outlet. Without the outlet, the project dies. Hallett asked proponent if they would consider paying for the whole construction of the storm sewer drainage. Gilk responded that the project was not big enough to warrant the cost, but felt they would be paying their fair share of 18%. Eickholt stated that if the lots in this proposal were the size of th existing lots,a storm sewer would not be needed. This proposal was the problem and will be the problem in the future. Presently there is no problem. Enger stated that Gilk indicated that the speed on Highway 1 should be lowered in order to allow a lot accessing directly to Co. Rd.#1. He was informed that was a decision to be made by the County. Staff felt that the septic systems should be designed so that they did not have to pump the sewage. • Eden Prairie Planning Commission April 11,1988 Page 4 MOTION 1 • Motion was made by Dodge and seconded by Bye to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0-0 Schuck felt if this was approved, Commission would be passing the problem on and the economics were great. Hallett supported Schuck's belief. Fell was concerned about the impact on the existing property and felt there were too many loop holes at this time. Bye felt it was too premature. Ruebling inquired to Staff what the potential was of getting the pipe in the correct place as to alleviate reconstruction at a later date. Gray stated to properly place the pipe, a feasibility study should be done. Gilk thanked Commission for their patience,and asked that there not be a continuance. They would prefer a conditional yes or a flat no. With a conditional yes they would go to the City Council and petition for a storm sewer for the entire area,or wait a year or so until the City decides about the placement of the pipe. Enger stated that the ordinance allows development without water and sewer. They can do it according to code but the storm water drainage must be dealt with. • Fell stated that there was no discussion on the future of Cty Road 1. Commission concluded that the project was premature in respect to drainage, and traffic. MOTION 2 Motion was made by Ruebling and seconded by Fell to recommend to the City Council denial of the request of Red Rock Heights Partnership for Preliminary Plat of Starring Lake 2nd Addition into 13 single family lots based on the finding(s) that the development of this property is premature due to the solution of drainage problem has not been satisfactorily resolved. Motion carried 5-0-0 B. VALLEY GATE 200, by The Helle Partnership. Request for a Site Plan Review within the 1-2 Zoning District on 4.9 acres with variances for zero lot line to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals for the construction of a 63,368 square foot office/warehouse. Location: Northeast corner of Golden Triangle Drive and West 74th Street. A public hearing. Scott Kipp,Assistant Planner, introduced the project as a 63,368 sq.ft. office/warehouse building on 4.9 acres. The remaining issue of the project was the screening of the rooftop mechanical equipment. When the first Valley Gate structure was reviewed by the Planning Commission, screening of rooftop units was based on sight lines provided by developer, which indicated all rooftop units would be screened from public roadways adjoining the property. When the structure was completed,the rooftop screening was still visible from certain roadways, and did not meet City Code screening requirements. Proponent then requested a variance from the Board of Appeals regarding the interpretation of screening. The Board of Appeals voted that plant material could be used for • screening. The screening, however, was not effective and at present the units are visible from different land uses. Eden Prairie Planning Commission April 11,1988 Page 5 . Kipp stated that the proposal is to utilize sight lines from the corners of the property in order to demonstrate screening of the rooftop units. City Ordinance states that all mechanical equipment mounted on the exterior of a building shall be physically screened from all public roads and adjacent differing land uses with metal or other building material integral to the structure. Kipp continued that the use of sight lines was dependent upon the location of the units, accurate topography,total number of size of units, and number of units that a tenant will require. These numbers are not completely known to the Staff or the proponent until the structure is completed and the tenant takes occupancy. Staff is recommending that proponent be required to bond for the screening plan as required by City Code after proponent has supplied Staff with a physical rooftop screening plan. Proponent, Sigmund Helle, in presenting the proposed site plan stated the building was similar to the existing Valley Gate structure and met City Code requirements. Helle spoke of the shared common entry way,stating that no variance for zero lot line was necessary since the City previously approved Phase One based on this lot line configuration. Helle stated that his attorney advised him that in accordance with the City Code, no variance should be required. Enger stated there was a difference of opinion on that matter, and Staff does not concur with the proponent's observation. Schuck inquired to Enger if he was aware this was going to be brought up this evening. Enger responded no. He was not aware of this aspect. Schuck assured participants that the project will be followed to the letter of the law. . MOTION Motion was made by Bye and seconded by Fell to recommend to City Council approval of the request of the Helle Partnership for site plan review within the 1-2 Zoning District on 4.9 acres,with variance for zero lot line to.be reviewed by the Board of Appeals,for construction of a 63,368 sq.ft. office/ warehouse to be known as Valley Gate 200, based on plans dated March 8, 1988,subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated April 8, 1988. Further, proponent is directed and required to supply Staff with a rooftop screening plan indicating how the rooftop units will be physically screened from all public roadways and adjacent differing land use, and proponent is required to bond for said screening, in accordance with City Code requirements. Motion carried 5-0-0 C. SEARS GARDEN STORE, by Sears, Roebuck and Company. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 87.75 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review within the C-Regional Zoning District on 87.75 acres with variances for exterior building material, for the construction of a 1,000 square foot seasonal temporary structure for an outside storage garden center. Location: Eden Prairie Center/Sears. A public hearing. Jack Riedel, representative for proponent, stated that for several years Sears had been approached to have an outdoor garden concession. Last year Sears opened garden stores at several Sears locations operated by Minnehaha Falls. Sears plan to open five more this year. Sears gets a percentage of the profit and provides a service to the community. They are requesting amendment for 8000 sq.ft. and would be open around the spring of year and close around the end of July. They would cooperate with all of Staff's recommendations. • Eden Prairie Planning Commission April 11, 1988 Page 6 Steve Durham,Asst. Planner, stated that City Code does not address temporary structures but felt • the amendment would comply if constructed and operated as outlined in the Planning Commission Staff Report. The proponent had no problem with anchoring in accordance with City recommendations. Ruebling inquired how electricity,water, and phone are handled. Proponent replied it will be gophered from the auto store. Hallett asked proponent if this could possible be extended to include selling Christmas trees. Proponent replied they had no intention of selling Christmas trees. Ruebling inquired of time line for setup of the area. Riedel thought two days would be required. Schuck asked where the tent and equipment are stored during off-season. Riedel assumed storage would be in the auto shop. Fell asked how chain link fence would be installed in asphalt. Proponent replied holes will be drilled for fence and when taken down,the holes will be filled with sand. Fell affirmed that has been done in the past and has been successful. MOTION 1 Motion was made by Fell and seconded by Dodge to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0-0 MOTION 2 • Motion was made by Fell and seconded by Dodge to recommend to City Council approval of the request of Sears, Roebuck and Company for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 87.75 acres for the overall Eden Prairie Center Planned Unit Development for the construction of a 1,000 sq.ft.seasonal temporary structure for an outside storage garden center, based on plans dated March 11, 1988, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated April 8, 1988, with recommendation that temporary structure be reviewed by City Building Inspector and that utilities be underground Motion carried 5-0-0 MOTION 3 Motion was made by Fell and seconded by Dodge to recommend to the City Council approval for the request of Sears, Roebuck and Company for Planned Unit Development. District Review and Zoning District Chagne within the C-Regional-Zoning District on 87.75 acres,with variances for exterior building materials,for construction of a 1,000 sq.ft.seasonal temporary structure for an outside storage garden center, based on plans dated March 11, 1988, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated April 8, 1988, and recommendation that building inspector approve underground wiring and anchoring of structure. Motion carried 6-0-0 D. GLENSHIRE, by Associated Investments. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Church to Neighborhood Commercial on 3.5 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 30.6 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 17.3 acres with variances and Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 17.3 acres, Preliminary Plat of 30.6 is Location: into 56 lots,2 outlots and road right-of-way for construction of a single family development. Location: Northeast corner of Valley View Road and Edenvale Boulevard. A public hearing. Eden Prairie Planning Commission April 11,1988 Page 7 . Enger reported that the project was a CGP change from Church to Neighbor-hood Commercial. Staff indicated to the developer that commercial use was not appropriate because there are already enough commercial uses serving the immediate neighborhood. Staff feels that to approve the Ri- 9.5 zoning and leave a small outlot for future development would make develop-ment of the outlot very difficult due to its size and unusual configuration. Lori Johnson,representative for the proponent, stated the.single-family development would consist of 56 lots and 2 outlots on a 30 acre lot. They are asking for PUD approval and for zoning change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 17.3 acres. Proponent was requesting a Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Church to Neighborhood Commercial on approx. 3.5 acres of land in the northeast section of the Valley View Road and.Edenvale Blvd. intersection. Mr. Kay Schumacher reported on the history of the land in question from the proponents viewpoint., and what the proponent has in mind for the site with the expansion of Valley View Road. They are asking for continued concept approval. A possible use of the 3-1/2 acres would be a spot for the light rail system. Kay (Mr.Schumacher) felt they had worked out the best use of the site. Enger reported the history from the City's perspective. He was concerned with the railroad track variance setbacks, and that Commission could consider the project without the answers to the land use questions. Carol Thompson, 15231 Creekside Court S., stated she was strongly opposed to having commercial development and would like a single family homes built in the area. Her reason was the Edenvale Park and the wildlife in the area. The commercial aspect would disturb the area. Ruebling inquired to-proponent about the soil in Outlot A and B. Proponent replied B was not good • as it was low land that was a marshy and sewage area; and Outlot A was not as bad. Tom Robertson stated proponent would touch up to the common road but would buffer from noise along Edenvale Blvd. Bye expressed concern that not too many citizens want to live near a commercial area. She felt it was a problem and not a good transaction. Fell was in favor of single family development,and he was okay with commercial,but do not mix them. Robertson stated their only intention was to build homes. That Staff directed them for zoning, but they only wanted a transition for the 3-1/2 acre lot. Ruebling.felt it made more sense to build single family homes on all usable land once they know what would happen with the railroad tracks. Roger Miller, 7036 Springhill Circle, stated he was hearing that everyone was in favor of single family homes and he was glad as he did not want to live among apartments and townhomes. MOTION Motion was made by Hallett and seconded by Bye to continue the Glenshire request of Associated Investments pending revision of the plans to provide for R1-9.5 land use on the proposed outlot of the property. Motion carried 5-0-0 • Eden Prairie Planning Commission April 11,1988 Page 8 E. TECHNOLOGY PARK PHASE IV. by Technology Park Associates. Request for Planned • Unit Development Concept Review on approximately 41 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with variances and Zoning District Change from Rural to 1-2 on 13 acres with shoreland variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Preliminary Plat of approximately 41 acres into one lot and two outlots for construction of 152,860 square feet of industrial use in two buildings. Location: West of Golden Triangle Drive, north of Nine Mile Creek,east of Smetana Lane. A public hearing. Enger stated this was the next to the last phase of the Hoyt Technology Phase. When the overall Hoyt Technology Park was reviewed by the City it originally included the land on both sides of the current Golden Triangle Drive. The request was dropped for any approval west of Golden Triangle Drive due to uncertainty.of.exact land use and lack of resolution regarding continuation of Smetana Lane. At the time of the original Technology Park, proposal continuation of Smetana Lane was left as an issue to be dealt with until the exact use of the area west of Golden Triangle Drive was determined. The City's position, at that time,was that Smetana Lane should continue through for overall traffic flow benefits. The Comprehensive Guide Plan depicted that Technology Park Phase IV area was high- density residential/industrial. The Hoyt proposal does not provide a buffer or transition to the single- family residence to the southwest and does not allow for the continuation of Smetana Lane. The overall site would be lower than originally proposed because of the lack of usable fill currently available on the site, indicating a lower road grade and building elevations. Staff also discussed the possibility of removing the connection to Smetana Lane from the proposal but found that Smetana Lane was projected to carry up to 7,000 trips per day at full development. Since there would be a dependence of that magnitude on the road, Staff recommended that it not be deleted from consideration. There are two remaining issues regarding this project: 1)the connection of Smetana Lane to Golden Triangle Drive and transition to the adjoining residential land uses,which is recommended by Staff and Public Works;.2)that the site-plan as proposed;-does not provide an effective transition to the adjoining single family homes along Smetana Lane, and should be revised to provide an effective buffer. Mike Gair presented and.described the landscaping layout, land use, and history of the project. Proponent felt that the road connecting Smetana Lane was not necessary and would impact the project if it was proposed in the current location. Three road alternatives were discussed: 1)Smetana Lane connection could proceed along the current alignment and connect with Golden Triangle Drive adjacent to Nine Mile creek-this would require both buildings to be shifted to the north or smaller buildings constructed; 2) Smetana Lane could be connected to Golden Triangle Drive at the intersection of West 76th Street-this would require shifting of the buildings to the south or smaller buildings; and 3) a feasibility study could be done to determine the best location of the connection to Smetana Lane. Frank Smetana,7722 Smetana Lane,�stated-it was hard to listen to people state that he-should not be where he was;that in the future he would be in the flood plain. He stated he received his permit for his home in 1973 in accordance with the Comprehensive Guide Plan. He felt if his existence was in the flood plain,why was he granted a permit. He spoke of the proponent's intent in the report to the Planning Commission that stated: The existing land to the north and to the west of this development is now undeveloped except for the Smetana residence which is adjacent to the southwestly portion of the site. It is anticipated that this is not a permanent use of that site and the residents will,at some point in time,be removed to allow for future development. Smetana asked who would remove him, how would they remove him,at what price would they remove him, and when would they remove him. They were the fourth and fifth generations of Smetana's living on the property now. • Eden Prairie Planning Commission April 11,1988 Page 9 Smetana spoke of the agreement regarding grading and development on the former Pearson gravel • pit land and how Pearson violated agreements without consequence and with the plan before the Commission Pearson would benefit for violations at Smetana's expense. Smetana stated his attorney felt that they may be in the grips of a condemnation of his land,and he asked the Commission for protection and rejection of the plan and any other plan until the question of their removal was answered. He stated that Mr. Lally told him he was holding the project hostage and he told him for questions to be answered-yes,for money -no. Brad Hoyt, proponent,spoke of the Cherne and Pearson history and the mess he was left with. He suggested that Pearson be sued to restore the land to the correct elevation. He stated that the Smetana's want the elevation at 875',and he had brought in fill to the west of the project and created a buffer that would bring the elevation up in 1985. He stated he never agreed to an overall elevation of 875'and was tired of hearing about it. If the overall elevation was 875'the buildings would be 15' higher. He stated he did sympathize with the Smetana's, and would purchase the land if he could get anything from the additional land, but that was not possible. He felt Smetana sold his property knowing it would be developed. Hoyt felt he was not doing anything that any other developer would do. Hoyt stated he purchased the land to develop and now was restricted for building on it. Hoyt reminded Commission that Helle had originally agreed to put in the road before he(Hoyt) bought the property. Discussion followed on shifting of building, eliminating entrance driveways, smaller buildings,traffic patterns, right-of-ways, and saving of vegetation. Smetana stated that if the road was not continued, a cul-de-sac was needed on Smetana Lane. Edward and Marcella Smetana, Smetana Lane,stated they were very concerned about the possibility • of their being removed from their home or having no access to their home. They asked for the Commission's protection as long time residents. They did not see the necessity for a four lane road in that area. Enger stated their is no intention of a four land road in that area. Ruebling stated he was concerned with protecting the value of the residents property. Hallett stated he was unresolved about the road, but felt Commission must satisfy the people living there as they have lived there a long time. Dodge asked if the buildings were smaller,would it solve the problem. Hoyt replied it would not be economically feasible to build a smaller building. Bye stated she did not want to see a 1500'cul-de-sac area left if Smetana Lane was not continued. Fell stated he did not like the 1500' cul-de-sac prospect. He was more in favor of continuing Smetana Lane and.the land to the west would have less impact. He wanted a resolution between the parties and felt more time would help the matter. Perhaps the whole area needed to be looked at to determine the impact on the entire site instead of project to project. Enger stated that technically the buildings meet code and the issue is a question of the road, and the transition to the single-family residences area. He did not feel a continuance would serve the purpose as this project has been continued since 1985. He recommended to Commission to deny the project and allow Mr. Hoyt to plead his case to the City Council. • Eden Prairie Planning Commission April 11, 1988 Page 10 MOTION 1: Motion was made by Dodge and seconded by Bye to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Dodge and seconded by Bye to deny the request of Technology Park Phase IV, by-Technology Park Associates; based on the need for Smetana Lane connection to Golden Triangle Drive, and the transition of the land use for the project is acceptable per Staff Recommenda- tions dated April 8, 1988. Motion carried 6-0-0 V. OLD BUSINESS None VI. NEW BUSINESS None VI1. PLANNER'S REPORT Enger informed Commission of upcoming project reviews for Hidden Glen 4th Addition- Derrick Land Companies and Frontier Homes, Bluffs East 6th Addition-Wallace Hustad, Frank Beddor Property- Frank Beddor,Wyndham Nob Addition- Burl Corporation, and Blossom Ridge 2nd Addition-G.William Pearson. VIII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION Motion was made by Fell and seconded by Bye to adjourn the meeting at 1:00 AM.