Planning Commission - 02/28/1983 AGENDA
Planning Commission
Monday, February 28, 1983
City Hall , 7:30 p.m.
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman William Bearman, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett,
Dennis Marhula, Liz Retterath, Grant Sutliff, Hakon Torjesen
STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
Kate Karnas, Planning Secretary
Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
II. APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 14, 1983 MINUTES
III. MEMBERS REPORTS
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. AMERICAN BAPTIST HOMES. Planned Unit Development District
to include: 1 Amendment of Original Lake Idlewild Planned
Unit Development Development Plan; 2) Rezoning from Rural to
Office, with possible variances on a one-acre site for the
Proposed American Baptist Homes Corporate Office Building;
3) Continued Interim Use of Existing American Baptist Homes
Building as an Office for 3 years, and Preliminary Plat of
the one-acre site proposed for American Baptist Homes Office
Building. Located north, south, and east of Lake Idlewild.
A continued public hearing.
B. BRYANT LAKE OFFICE TECH CENTER, by Welsh Construction, Inc.
Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment,
Planned Unit Development District Review, Rezoning from C-
Regional Commercial to Office with variances for 10.73 acres
for office/service storage facilities usage, and Preliminary
Plat. Location: County Road #60 (Valley View Road) and
Market Place Drive. A public hearing.
C. WESTWOOD INDUSTRIAL PARK, by Bury & Carlson. Request for
Planned Unit Development District and Zoning for former
Westwood Industrial Park. Location: South of County Road
67 and West of St. John's Woods Townhouses. A public
hearing.
Agenda -2- February 28, 1983
D. MURIEL HUMPHREY RESIDENCE, by Louise Witbeck Fraser Schools,
Inc. Request for Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density
Residential to Medium Density Residential, Rezoning from
Rural to RM-6.5, and Preliminary Plat for 2.7 acres to be
used as a group home for mentally retarded. Location: West
of County Road #1 and Pioneer Trail intersection. A public
hearing.
E. OAK PARK BUSINESS CENTER, by GSB Investments, Inc. Request
for Rezoning from Rural to I-2 for 3.3 acres for
office/warehouse use. Location: South of Valley View Road,
west Washington Avenue. A public meeting.
V. OLD BUSINESS
VI. NEW BUSINESS
• VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, February 28, 1983 7:30 p.m., City Hall
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman William Bearman, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett
(7:35 p.m.), Dennis Marhula, Grant Sutliff, Hakon Torjesen
MEMBERS ABSENT: Elizabeth Retterath
STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
Kate Karnas, Planning Secretary
Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Sutliff, to approve the
agenda as presented.
Motion carried--5-0-0
II. APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 14, 1983 MINUTES
Marhula requested that on page two, paragraph two, the following
information be added: "Mr. Peterson stated that, should the
petition for extension of sewer and water fail again, he would like
to maintain his right to petition for a variance to build upon the
property without public utilities."
Page four, paragraph two, line two, delete the word "site."
Torjesen stated that on page six, the following information replace
the second sentence under "DISCUSSION:" with the following:
"Commissioners also asked for clarification of various items
including the definition of "M.U.S.A. Line" and the allowance . of
such uses within and outside of said line, and distance necessary
from existing residential subdivisions. There was consensus of the
Commission that there may be appropriate locations within the
M.U.S.A. Line for commercial stables and a variance procedure should
be added to the proposed ordinance to deal with such situations."
MOTION
Motion was made by Sutliff, seconded by Gartner, to approve the
minutes as amended.
Planning Commission Minutes 2 February 28, 1983
Motion carried--4-0-2 (Chairman Bearman and Hallett abstained)
III. MEMBERS REPORTS
None.
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. AMERICAN BAPTIST HOMES. Planned Unit Development District
to include: 1 Amendment of Original Lake Idlewild Planned
Unit Development, Development Plan; 2) Rezoning from Rural
to Office, with possible variances on a one-acre site for
the Proposed American Baptist Homes Corporate Headquarters
Office Building; 3) Continued Interim Use of Existing
American Baptist Homes Building as an Office for 3 years.
Preliminary Plat Approval of the one-acre site proposed for
American Baptist Homes Office Building. Located north,
south, and east of Lake Idlewild. A continued public
hearing.
Staff reviewed the request of the proponent with the Commission and
reviewed the Staff Report of February 25, 1983.
• Tom Heiberg, Land Sake, proponent for the project, and Curly
Roberts, Roberts Architects, were present to discuss the amended
plans with the Commission.
Mr. Roberts reviewed the changes to the plans indicating that 1) The
original thirteen (13) smaller buildings clustered throughout the
site had been replaced with three (3) larger buildings; 2) Sidewalks
had been added to the parking lot side of the buildings for
perimeter pedestrian circulation and better access to parking in
addition to the walkway planned at the "back" of the buildings
around the lake.
Mr. Roberts stated that it was the plan of the proponent to blend
the architecture of the development by using the same brick on all
buildings and similar windows with an "arch" design, and similar
design features would be used for the proposed American Baptist
Homes Corporate Headquarters Office site, and would also be used
eventually on the existing Interim Use site currently owned by
American Baptist Homes. At this time, there was no site plan
available for the existing Interim Use site.
Chairman Bearman questioned why the submission was still incomplete
with respect to the information requested from the previous Planning
Commission.
Mr. Heiberg stated that timing was a problem from the previous
• Commission meeting to this one. He added that it was his feeling
that screening of the parking was a difficult task on this site and
the screening shown, he felt, would be adequate.
Planning Commission Minutes 3 February 28, 1983
Planner Enger stated that it was not always the case that the
Planning Commission would review a landscape plan for a site.
However, in this case, when the original plan came through with a
request for front yard setback variances, Staff recognized that it
would be difficult to screen the parking areas from the roads under
these conditions. Proponent was still requesting those same front
yard variances at this time. Planner Enger added that, if it is
indeed difficult to screen the parking due to the front yard setback
variances requested and previously approved, then perhaps the
Commission should consider recommending against the variances.
Screening of the parking is a requirement of the City Code. He
added that, if the proponents would like more time to consider these
facts, the Commission could postpone a recommendation to the Council
until a later date.
DISCUSSION
Chairman Bearman pointed out that Staff had previously requested
site line drawings showing the effectiveness of the screening of
parking from 169 and West 78th Street, a landscape plan, and street
elevations for the two thoroughfares adjacent to the site (169 and
West 78th Street) in comparison to the site itself. None of these
items were available for Commission review.
Sutliff stated concern that site lines drawings for Eden Road were
still not available. He added that he felt the area would have a
high degree of visibility from this road. He questioned what type
of slope was proposed for this area. Mr. Roberts responded that the
slope would be approximately 4.5% at the Eden Road entrance, 3.75%
at the central West 78th Street entrance, and approximately 1% at
the other West 78th Street entrance.
Torjesen questioned whether the two walkways, one around the lake
and one along the perimeter of the parking areas, were required by
Staff. Planner Enger responded that Staff's opinion was that one
would be adequate, the preferred one being along the perimeter of
the parking areas, the proposed walkway around the lake being more
optional . The lake walkway was proposed mainly as an amenity for
the site.
Mr. Heiberg stated that he concurred with Staff that the walkway
along the perimeter of the parking areas would be the most
important, and also would be the easiest to maintain during all
seasons of the year. The one around the lake would likely not be
maintained year-round.
Hallett questioned whether the walkway connected to the walkways at
adjacent sites in an effort to produce a "walkway system" in this
area. Planner Enger stated that this was the eventual intent for
the area. However, this site could not complete the connections to
all adjacent sites due to intervening undeveloped properties. He
added that it was the intention of the City to construct a walkway
along West 78th Street for the purpose of creating such a "walkway
system." Hallett stated that he felt it would be important for the
Planning Commission Minutes 4 February 28, 1983
employees further west to be able to access the restaurant areas.
Hallett also questioned whether this site could possibly connect the
Rosemount site via walkways to the restaurants in the vicinity.
Planner Enger stated that this could be done from Rosemount's
southeast corner, otherwise it would require completion of the West
78th Street walkway by the City.
Hallett asked if the designation of sidewalks installed by
businesses were for private use or public use. Planner Enger
responded that they would be private sidewalks used by the public.
Hallett stated that he felt it was important for the Commission to
keep the idea of a "walkway system" in mind in review of all
proposals before them in order that a complete system be established
throughout the City eventually.
Planner Enger asked Mr. Heiberg if they would be willing to grant a
public walkway easement to the City as opposed to leaving their
walkway(s) in private ownership. Mr. Heiberg stated that the
easement could cause mortgage problems, but as a practical matter,
he agreed that the public would use the walks.
Marhula questioned the status of the "deck" that was proposed at the
last meeting for building A-3. Mr. Roberts responded that the deck
was proposed as an amenity for that particular building. The
building accesses the lake at the underground level; therefore, the
deck was located on the "second" level of that side of the building.
Mr. Roberts stated that it could be eliminated, if necessary.
Marhula asked the proponents to explain the proposed condominium
association relationships. Mr. Heiberg stated that everyone within
the PUD would be able to partake in the amenities provided by the
association. On a pro-rata basis, everyone would be charged for
maintenance involved in the association. One difference would be
that the American Baptist Homes Headquarters Office would own their
own lot. The land owned by American Baptist Homes for their
Headquarters Office would not be included in the association.
However, American Baptist Homes would partake of the amenities and
the maintenance involved with membership in the association.
Hallett questioned whether the thoroughfares in the area were
designed to handle the amount of traffic which would result from
this site. Planner Enger stated that they were. Hallett further
questioned the adequacy of the parking on-site. Planner Enger
responded that number of spaces were adequate for the site. There
were more spaces planned for this amended plan than were proposed
for the original PUD.
Chairman Bearman expressed concern regarding the level of detail
contained in the Development Framework Manual provided by the
proponent. For example, in years to come, if a new owner were to
develop the site, there may be confusion about what was meant by
"traditional materials" as an exterior finish. It would be possible
. Planning Commission Minutes 5 February 28, 1983
to include anything from cedar logs to the type of brick discussed
by Mr. Roberts earlier as an exterior finish. He suggested that the
proponents state the type and color of brick that would be used
specifically to avoid such problems in the future and to assure a
continuity in the appearance of the site from this time forward. He
added that there were other details contained in the Development
Framework Manual which he felt were equally vague.
Mr. Heiberg stated that he felt the proponents were clear on what
they wanted in terms of materials. However, communicating it in the
manual was apparently not done adequately due to the time
constraints they had from the last meeting before the Commission.
Torjesen stated that he was aware of previous requests for
Development Framework Manuals from proponents, but that they were
not always requested. He asked Staff for a "rule of thumb" as to
when such a document would be necessary. Planner Enger responded
that they would be requested in situations where there would be a
number of parcels proposed for multiple owners, when specific plans
were not available on each lot. The purpose would be to provide for
a thread of continuity throughout the project for such things as
exterior finishing, etc. In particular, Staff would be looking for
continuity in areas of exterior materials, signage, and landscaping.
Planner Enger stated that in the case of this project, proponent
could clear up the matter of detail in these areas by providing a
one-to-two page letter stating the types of things mentioned earlier
by Mr. Roberts in detail. He suggested that perhaps signage be left
to another time since the proponent was not quite sure of what he
wanted yet. At this time, proponent would be required to meet the
City Code requirements for signage. The landscape plan would also
be required to provide greater detail, such as the caliper or height
of plantings, slopes of berms, seeding materials, species of
plantings, etc. Planner Enger stated that the Planning Commission
could choose to have the landscape plan presented to them for review
in the future also, if they so chose.
Torjesen stated that he agreed with Staff in that he felt it was
important that the parking areas be properly screened from the roads
as required by City Code.
Mr. Heiberg stated that he could have the letter prepared
immediately regarding the details requested for the Development
Framework Manual and asked if such a letter would be satisfactory in
meeting this requirement. The Commission and Staff responded that
it would. He added that they would like to keep the project moving
as quickly as possible in order to start American Baptist soon.
Marhula stated that he felt greater detail for the Development
Framework Manual and for the landscape plan, especially the adequacy
of screening of the parking areas, could be handled by Staff.
Chairman Bearman asked for comments from members of the audience.
There were none.
Planning Commission Minutes 6 February 28, 1983
MOTION 1 :
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Gartner, to close the public
hearing.
Motion carried--6-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Gartner,to recommend to the
City Council approval of the Planned Unit Development District Plan
of the Lake Idlewild Planned Unit Development (with setback
variances), including the new site for American Baptist Homes, and
continuation of the Interim Use of the existing American Baptist
Homes building as an Office for three years, per plans dated January
24, 1983 and written materials dated February, 1983, and subject to
the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated February 11, and
February 25, 1983.
It was noted in discussion of the motion that particular attention
be paid to the item in the February 11, 1983 Staff Report dealing
with the requirement for a Development Framework Manual. Marhula
questioned whether there had been a Development Framework Manual
with the original Lake Idlewild PUD. Planner Enger stated that
there had not.
Motion carried--5-1-0 (Chairman Bearman voted no)
Hallett questioned the propriety of allowing the interim use site to
continue for an additional three years. He asked Staff what was
being done with other interim uses. Planner Enger responded that
three years was what was stated in the draft ordinance dealing with
interim uses.
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Gartner, to recommend to the
City Council approval of the Rezoning from Rural to Office, with
variances, on a one-acre site for the American Baptist Homes
Corporate Headquarters Office Building, per the plans dated January
24, 1983 and written materials dated February, 1983, and subject to
the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated February 11, and
February 25, 1983.
In discussion, Sutliff questioned the zoning of the land upon which
the interim use was located. Planner Enger stated that it was zoned
Rural and had received a first reading for rezoning from Rural to
Office.
Motion carried--5-1-0 (Chairman Bearman voted no)
MOTION 4:
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Gartner, to recommend to the
Planning Commission Minutes 7 February 28, 1983
. City Council approval of the preliminary plat of the one-acre site
for American Baptist Homes Corporate Headquarters Office Building
per plans dated January 24, 1983, and written materials dated
February, 1983, and per the recommendations of the Staff Reports of
February 11, and February 25, 1983.
Motion carried--4-2-0 (Chairman Bearman and Sutliff against)
Chairman Bearman stated he voted against the last three motions for
two reasons: 1) The City currently has no ordinance regarding
interim use sites, and 2) He felt the plans presented were not
detailed enough and did not feel comfortable with the project based
on the generalities presented by the Development Framework Manual .
B. BRYANT LAKE OFFICE TECH CENTER, by Welsh Construction, Inc.
Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment,
Planned Unit Development District Review, Rezoning from C-
Regional Commercial to Office with variances for 10.73 acres
for office/service storage facilities usage, and Preliminary
Plat. Location: County Road #60 (Valley View Road) and
Market Place Drive. A public hearing.
Planner Enger reported that the proponent had requested indefinite
postponement of the item due to a change of plans.
• MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Sutliff, to close the public
hearing for Bryant Lake Office Tech Center for Welsh Construction
and return the proposal to the applicant pending complete
information.
Motion carried--6-0-0
C. WESTWOOD INDUSTRIAL PARK, by Bury & Carlson. Request for
Planned Unit Development Amendment and Zoning Amendment for
former Westwood Industrial Park. Location: South of County
Road 67 and West of St. John's Woods Townhouses. A public
hearing.
Planner Enger reviewed the request of Bury & Carlson for development
of their property. Jim Ostenson, Tandem Corporation, representing
the proponent, was present to discuss the proposal.
Mr. Ostenson reviewed the history of the proposed development on the
property, beginning with the purchase of the property by another
company from Bury & Carlson, the original owners. The purchaser of
the property defaulted, thereby placing the land back in the hands
of Bury & Carlson. Previously, an industrial park was proposed in
this area. Bury & Carlson were proposing the basic same industrial
• park with changes requested in the grading,the landscape treatment
of the land, and related Development Agreement conditions.
Mr. Ostenson presented slides of the site, showing the sensitive
areas to the east within the floodplain and that area requiring
Planning Commission Minutes 8 February 28, 1983
special treatment of slopes, adjacent to St. John's Woods townhouse
development. He stated that in some cases, the normal slopes were
at a 1 :1 ratio in this area. Also, he pointed out the areas of
trees to be saved and preserved, as well as one tree stand in the
southeast corner of the site which the developer intended to remove.
Mr. Ostenson then reviewed the proposed landscape plan showing the
screening proposed for the site and proposed stablization methods
for the slopes. He stated that with regard to the Staff Report
recommendation that the species of trees be changed in some cases,
the developer had no objections and would meet with Staff to
determine suitable species.
With regard to the Staff Report reference to a fiber blanket to be
used to stablize the slopes, Mr. Ostenson stated that they felt the
methods proposed were sufficient to assure erosion control. He
stated that costs were high for the fiber blanket method.
Bury & Carlson was willing to work with residents of St. John's
Woods, as they had in the past when a berm was installed by them
between the sites, to insure proper screening of the development
from the residents.
Mr. Ostenson stated that utilities are in place in Bury Drive and
. Carlson Drive. Street paving would be done in the near future.
At this time, Rutledge Construction is proposing to build a 54,000
square foot building for office/warehouse usage overlooking the pond
to the north of it. The building will be owner-occupied.
Planner Enger reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff
Report of February 25, 1983 for this project. With respect to the
outlots on the easterly portion of the site, he explained that Bury
& Carlson, Inc. was asking the City to provide them some credit for
the property involved. It was the intention of the proponent to
convey these two parcels to the City eventually as a "charitable
donation."
It was pointed out that Staff was concerned that any method other
than a staked fiber blanket may not be sufficient to guarantee that
the slopes be preserved and protected from erosion in a permanent
manner for the site due to the severity of the angle of the slopes.
Planner Enger pointed out that the proposed 2:1 slope would be
consistent with the character of the area; however, the method of
erosion control was critical to its protection.
As to vegetation on the slope, Staff indicated concern for the long-
term appearance of the area. Plant materials shown, in some cases,
were not native to the area. Existing species of the area included
Aspen and Oak varieties. These plantings and mulching would aid in
• the stabilization of the slope.
Planning Commission Minutes 9 February 28, 1983
•
DISCUSSION
Torjesen asked if proponent would be requesting a "density transfer"
from the outlots to the remainder of the property. Planner Enger
responded that, in theory, this would be true.
Sutliff questioned whether the road pattern had been altered from
the original plan. Staff responded that it had not.
Sutliff asked what would happen to the current access off County
Road 67 at the time the County upgraded the road. Planner Enger
stated that existing County Road 67 would become the frontage road
to new County Road 67.
Torjesen questioned whether the developer would be returning for
site plan review on each individual site. Planner Enger responded
that the proponent was requesting to develop in accordance with the
I-2 Zoning District and requesting a release from definite site plan
approval at this stage.
Marhula questioned whether public sewer and water had been installed
according to the proposed grades. Mr. Ostenson stated that they
had, which was one of the reasons for the requested amendment to the
grading plan.
Chairman Bearman asked for comments and questions from the audience.
Peter Stalland, 6317 St. John's Drive, attorney for the St. John's
Woods Homeowners Association, stated that the major concern of the
association was that the City have control over the outlots. He
stated that the association had been happy with the response they
had received from Bury & Carlson to-date, as well as with the
cooperation received from the City. It was their request that the
arrangement for preservation of the outlots be formalized to insure
no building or encroachment onto these properties in the future.
Planner Enger stated that the purpose of allowing Bury & Carlson to
convey the properties as represented in the proposed amendment to
the developer's agreement was to allow them to create greater
"worth" in the two outlots in order to obtain a possible "charitable
donation" ruling on the properties to be donated to the City. He
added that they would still be precluded from building on the
outlots.
Torjesen questioned what was planned for the creek area of the
property. Planner Enger explained that the creek area was
completely contained within one of the outlots. The other outlot
• was mainly the buffer/slope area on the east and adjacent to St.
John's Woods.
The Commission discussed the fact that the individual sites would
not be returning for site plan review. Torjesen stated that he was
,Planning Commission Minutes 10 February 28, 1983
not certain that it was in the best interests of the City to allow
further development of the sites without additional City review.
Chairman Bearman stated that the City may be sacrificing continuity
of scheme, but that would be the extent of it in that the developer
would be required to meet the requirements of the Zoning Code.
Planner Enger stated that there were not existing examples of
industrial parks which had been required to build according to a
development framework manual in Eden Prairie.
It was pointed out that the graphic shown of the proposed Rutledge
Construction office/warehouse building was not necessarily the final
outcome for the construction of the building. The only requirement
of the structure eventually placed on the site was that it meet City
Code minimum standards.
Marhula questioned whether the developers of property involving
public improvement projects were required to bond or guarantee all
or a portion of the assessment for the improvements up front or
whether the guarantee of assessments fell to the property. Planner
Enger stated that the City had begun to require both methods of
guarantee.
MOTION 1 :
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Marhula, to close the public
hearing.
Motion carried--6-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Marhula, to recommend to the
City Council approval of the Amendment to the Planned Unit
Development District and Zoning for Westwood Industrial Park,
subject to plans dated October 25, 1982, February 23, 1983, written
materials from the proponent submitted February, 1983, and subject
to the recommendations of the Staff Report of February 25, 1983.
Motion carried--6-0-0
Chairman Bearman declared a recess at 9:55 p.m.; the meeting was
reconvened at 10:05 p.m.
D. MURIEL HUMPHREY RESIDENCE, by Louise Witbeck Fraser Schools,
Inc. Request for Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density
Residential to Medium Density Residential, Rezoning from
Rural to RM-6.5 for 2.7 acres, and Preliminary Plat for
group home for mentally retarded. Location: West of County
Road #1 and Pioneer Trail intersection. A public hearing.
Planner Enger reviewed the request of Louise Witbeck Fraser Schools,
Planning Commission Minutes 11 February 28, 1983
• Inc. for development of their property for a group home for mentally
retarded. He explained that the City Code dealing with Family Care
Homes limited the number of persons living in such a home to six
plus the resident care couple. There were two reasons for this: 1)
There was concern with the care and treatment of the residents
within the homes; and 2) The ordinance contemplated that an existing
home could be purchased and used as a Family Care Home in an
existing neighborhood. The request of the proponent was for a
larger number of residents and a larger staff than contemplated by
the Code.
Dr. Robert Kowalczyk, Director of the program, gave a brief history
of the purpose of such projects by his organization, explaining the
needs the Fraser Schools were trying to meet in the community. He
then explained the unique design of this particular structure and
its functional qualities for the purposes the Fraser Schools had in
mind. Dr. Kowalczyk also explained the unique features of this
particular site for the structure proposed. While the structure was
designed as a two-unit building, anyone travelling along County Road
1 would only be able to see one unit at a time.
Staff reviewed the recommendations from the Staff Report of February
25, 1983 with the Commission.
. DISCUSSION
Gartner questioned whether this proposal met the requirement in the
Code regarding the number of Family Care Homes allowed in any
neighborhood. Planner Enger stated that it did; the closest unit
was in the Preserve area.
Hallett questioned the usage of existing lots surrounding the site.
Planner Enger stated that to the west was a single family home, a
vacant parcel, a sheet metal shop,, then a a plumbing and heating
shop. He stated that it was possible for these parcels all to be
industrial. Hallett asked Dr. Kowalczyk if this would pose a
problem for his proposed facility. Dr. Kowalczyk responded that it
would not.
Dr. Kowalczyk stated that a neighborhood meeting had been held by
the Fraser Schools to determine neighborhood concerns, if any. The
meeting was attended by only one person, a representative from the
City's Human Rights Commission.
Marhula questioned whether the two parcels shown on the preliminary
plat were under the same ownership. Dr. Kowalczyk stated that they
were. Planner Enger stated that the platting was required for
dedication of the road right-of-way. When the road was realigned
through this area, it split this parcel into two; therefore,
platting was required.
Marhula asked if rezoning was being requested for both lots.
Planner Enger stated that it was just for the lot with the proposed
structure, Parcel A.
Planning Commission Minutes 12 February 28, 1983
i
Chairman Bearman asked if the Human Rights Commission had reviewed
the project. Planner Enger stated that they had, and that their
concerns had already been addressed satisfactorily by the Fraser
Schools.
The Commission discussed staffing of the residence with Dr.
Kowalczyk. He stated that there would be 24-hour coverage for the
facility. Each unit would have one counselor and two assistants as
direct-service staff. Indirect service staff would include a nurse
and program specialist who would serve as a liaison between the
community, the parents, and the program. In addition, there would
be a housekeeper, dietician, and a maintenance person. Staffing
ratio would be 2.5/1. State requirements were 3/1 minimum.
Hallett questioned how funding was appropriated to the program. Dr.
Kowalczyk stated that the majority of the funding was from federal
sources, some from the state and county, and a small portion from
the families of the residents.
Chairman Bearman asked if the residents of the facility were able to
function in jobs. Dr. Kowalczyk stated that one of the purposes of
this particular facility was to prepare and train the residents for
jobs. The average length of time a resident would be in this
program would be 18 months, after which time they would be
considered for advancement into a less supervised situation.
Torjesen questioned what the per diem cost was for such a facility.
Dr. Kowalczyk replied that their programs average $65.00 per day per
resident. By comparison, he added, the State hospitals cost $160.00
per day per resident.
Chairman Bearman asked if their were questions or comments from
members of the audience. There were none.
Sutliff questioned whether the proposed use met the parking
requirements of the City Code. Planner Enger stated that it did.
Sutliff asked if there would be adequate parking for visitors, as
well as staff. Ron Krank, architect for the proponent, stated that
was adequate space available. It would be an unusual circumstance
where all parking places for staff members would be in use. If so,
there was adequate space available as there would be within the
driveway of a single family home for visitors.
MOTION 1 :
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Torjesen, to close the
public hearing.
• Motion carried--6-0-0
MOTION 2•
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett, to recommend to the
Planning Commission Minutes 13 February 28, 1983
• City Council approval the Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density to
Medium Density Residential for Parcel A of the Muriel Humphrey
Residence of Louise Witbeck Fraser Schools, Inc. per the plans dated
January 21, 1983 and written materials dated February 7, 1983, and
subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated February
25, 1983.
Motion carried--6-0-0
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Marhula, to recommend to the
City Council approval of the Rezoning from Rural to RM-6.5 and
Preliminary Plat of 2.7 acres, Parcel A, to be used as a group home
for mentally retarded, per the plans dated January 21, 1983 and
written materials dated February 7, 1983, and subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated February 25, 1983.
Motion carried--6-0-0
E. OAK PARK BUSINESS CENTER, by GSB Investments, Inc. Request
for Rezoning from Rural to I-2 for 3.3 acres for
office/warehouse use. Location: South of Valley View Road,
west Washington Avenue. A public meeting.
• Planner Enger explained that it had been determined that a
preliminary plat was necessary for this project for dedication of
the road. It was decided that both items be reviewed by the
Planning Commission at the same time; therefore, proponent
requested postponement of the request for rezoning until the March
14, 1983 meeting. At that time, both rezoning and preliminary plat
requests would be reviewed by the Commission.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Torjesen, to continue the
public hearing for Oak Park Business Center to the March 14, 1983
Planning Commission meeting.
V. OLD BUSINESS
None.
VI. NEW BUSINESS
None.
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
• None.
Planning Commission Minutes 14 February 28, 1983
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
The Commission acknowledged the time and dedication of retiring
members Liz Retterath and Grant Sutliff, thanking them for their
work for the City over the past several years.
MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Gartner, seconded by Torjesen.
Chairman Bearman adjourned the meeting at 11 :05 p.m.
Resp ctfully submitted,
Kate Karnas
Planning Secretary