Planning Commission - 04/25/1983 AGENDA
Eden Prairie Planning Commission
W-pril 25, 1983
7:30 p.m., City Hall
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman William Bearman, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett, Stan
Johannes, Dennis Marhula, Ed Schuck, 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 MINUTES
III. MEMBERS REPORTS
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. BLUFFS EAST, The Bluffs Company. Request for Planned Unit Development
District Review and Zoning Amendment for 6 acres for 40 townhouse units;
Preliminary Plat of 6 acres for 40 townhouse units. Location: West of
Franlo Road, South of County Road #1. A continued public hearing.
B. LION'S TAP. Request for Zoning of five acres from Rural to Highway
Commercial for use as a restaurant. Location: North of Highway #169/212,
west of County Road #4. A continued public meeting.
C. HIDDEN GLEN, by R. M. Feerick Associates. Request for Planned Unit
Development District Review of 104 acres for 195 single family detached
units and 58 multi-family units; Rezoning from Rural to R1-9.5, R1-13.5,
and R1-22 for 22.8 acres for residential use; and Preliminary Plat of 22.8
acres for 59 single family lots. Location: East of Highway 101 and South
of Townline Road. A public hearing.
D. BRYANT LAKE OFFICE/TECH CENTER, by Welsh Construction. Request for PUD
Amendment, with variances, Rezoning from C-Regional Commercial to Office,
and Preliminary Plat for 7.94 acres for office/service storage facilities.
Location: County Road 60 (Valley View Road) and Market Place Drive. A
public hearing.
E. LORENCE ADDITION, by Associated Investments, Inc. Request for Rezoning
from Rural to RM-6.5 for 4.725 acres for 31 condominium units. Location:
Duck Lake Road and Valley View Road. A public meeting.
VI. OLD BUSINESS
VII. NEW BUSINESS
VIII. PLANNER'S REPORT
IX. ADJOURNMENT
0 MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, April 25, 1983
City Hall , 7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman William Bearman, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett,
Stan Johannes, Dennis Marhula, Ed Schuck (8:30 p.m. ), and
Hakon Torjesen
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
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 Torjesen, to approve the
Is agenda as presented.
Motion carried--6-0-0
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION:
Motion was made by Torjesen, seconded by Gartner, to approve the
minutes of the April 11, 1983 meeting as written.
Motion carried--4-0-2 (Johannes and Marhula abstained)
III. MEMBERS REPORTS
None.
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. BLUFFS EAST, The Bluffs Company. Request for Planned Unit
Develop pment District Review and Zoning Amendment for 6 acres
for 40 townhouse units; Preliminary Plat of 6 acres for 40
townhouse units. Location: West of Franlo Road, South of
County Road #1 . A continued public hearing.
40 Staff explained that the multiple portion of the Bluffs East project
had been continued to this meeting, pending revision of matters of
concern noted in the Staff Report of April 8, 1983 and per concerns
Planning Commission Minutes 2 April 25, 1983
of the Planning Commission at their meeting of April 11, 1983.
Proponent had presented revised plans to the City Staff, showing the
proposed revisions per recommendations of Staff and the Planning
Commission.
Planner Enger stated that discussions were held with the Engineering
Department regarding the radius of curvature of the road through the
project. A compromise to 150 ft. radii was agreed to by proponent
and the City. He pointed out that the buffering recommended in the
Staff Report of April 8, 1983 had been shown on the revised plans,
as well.
DISCUSSION:
Torjesen questioned whether the proponent was satisfied with the
compromise of 150 ft. for the radii of the curves in the road. Mr.
Richard Zedlik, Baton, Inc., stated that he felt the 150 ft. radii
would accomplish both the purposes of the City and their requirement
to slow traffic through the site.
Chairman Bearman asked for questions and comments from members of
the audience. There were none.
MOTION 1 :
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett, to close the public
hearing.
Motion carried--6-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Torjesen, to recommend
approval of the Planned Unit Development District Review and Zoning
Amendment for 6 acres for 40 townhouse units, the multiple portion
of the Bluffs East PUD, based on revised plans dated April 22, 1983,
and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports of April 8,
and April 22, 1983.
Motion carried--6-0-0
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett, to recommend
approval of the Preliminary Plat of 6 acres for 40 townhouse units,
the multiple portion of the Bluffs East PUD, based on revised plans
dated April 22, 1983, and subject to the recommendations of the
Staff Reports of April 8, and April 22, 1983.
B. LION'S TAP. Request for Zoning of five acres from Rural to
Highway Commercial for use as a restaurant. Location:
North of Highway #169/212, west of County Road #4. A
continued public meeting.
Planning Commission Minutes 3 April 25, 1983
At its meeting of April 11, 1983, the Planning Commission had
directed Staff to work with the City Attorney to determine the
alternatives available for dealing with this property, in that it
existed as a non-conforming use within the current zoning district,
Rural, and was requesting zoning of Commercial, which was
incompatible with the Comprehensive Guide Plan. Planner Enger
reported that the City Attorney advised that the use could be zoned
and limited to this use through covenants and agreements, which
would run between the City and the property owner. The agreement
could contain provisions for rebuilding of the use, if it should be
destroyed. Such provisions would allow a use similar to the current
Lion's Tap, and only the Lion's Tap. No other uses would be allowed
by the covenants and agreements between the property owner and the
City.
Dick Putnam, representing the owner, stated that they- had met with
Staff to work out the concerns of the Planning Commission at the
April 11 , 1983 meeting. A realignment of the roadway had been
prepared, which moved the intersection of County Road #4 and U. S.
#169 farther east, thereby allowing for a conforming front yard
setback for the property and creating a 90 degree angle intersection
for these two roads. He stated that the parking had been moved
further down the hill, per the Commission's recommendation. There
were provisions in the revised plan for 60 parking spaces and three
handicapped parking spaces. Also, per the recommendations of the
Hennepin County Department of Transportation, the access drive was
moved to the south, away from the curve in County Road #4. Mr.
Putnam added that the unusual configuration of the parcel was due to
the fact that the drain field for the septic system was located to
the west of the building.
Planner Enger reviewed the recommendations of the Staff Report with
the Commission, stating that the basis for the recommendations was
to maintain the use at its existing size, not to allow for
expansion, and to correct the zoning violations existing on the
site.
DISCUSSION
Torjesen questioned the policy for charging Cash Park Fees to
properties, as recommended by the Staff Report for this project.
Staff responded that the fee was charged at the time of building
permit issuance for the site. .
Hallett questioned whether it was necessary for the proponent to
take any action at this time. Planner Enger stated that proponent
was currently in violaton of City Code in a number of instances.
Council had directed Staff to act upon the matter in order to
resolve the violations as quickly as possible.
Johannes asked if any exterior improvements were proposed. Mr.
Putnam stated that the roof of the structure would be changed, as
would the rear entrance to the structure, as part of this proposed
Planning Commission Minutes 4 April 25, 1983
M
amendment to the property.
Johannes questioned whether the City would be gaining or losing by
allowing such an addition to the Tap property. He stated that he
felt the improvements proposed by the owner would improve the
property immensely, and that he did not feel it would be detrimental
to allow for the expansion as proposed. Johannes suggested that
perhaps the economic feasibility of correcting the violations should
be taken into consideration, as opposed to considering the use only
in terms of "making it legal."
Gartner and Hallett stated that they agreed with Johannes.
Chairman Bearman stated that he questioned whether this was an
appropriate action to take in that it would be an action based on
economics, rather than in conformance with the existing City Code
and Comprehensive Guide Plan. He pointed out that other uses within
the community, existing or proposed, were required to meet City Code
requirements, as well as conform to the Comprehensive Guide Plan.
He stated that he felt the Commission should consider whether they
would be willing to make the same recommendation for any other use
under such conditions.
• Hallett questioned how many other uses there were of this type in
the City. Staff responded that there were not many, however a count
of such uses had never been taken. Hallett stated that he felt the
covenants proposed by the City Attorney would be adequate to allow
the expansion proposed, yet to limit further expansion of the use.
Johannes stated that he felt the introduction of a "T" intersection
at the County Road U. S. Highway #169 intersection would be a great
benefit to the City.
Torjesen questioned if the City Staff had explored other
alternatives for dealing with this non-conforming use other than
allowing a change to the Zoning District. Staff responded that the
City Attorney had stated that the change in zoning was the best
alternative.
Gartner stated that she was concerned that the slopes be preserved
and protected as much as possible. Staff stated that an erosion ,
control plan would be reviewed prior to issuance of a building
permit for the property.
Chairman Bearman asked for questions and comments from members of
the audience.
Dean Edstrom, 10133 Eden Prairie Road, stated that he was concerned
about the precedence this would be setting in allowing a non-
conforming use to be zoned and expanded in conflict with the City
Code and Comprehensive Plan.
James Van Winkle, 10129 Eden Prairie Road, stated that he preferred
the parking lot behind the building. He added that he felt the
Planning Commission Minutes 5 April 25, 1983
proposed 60 spaces would be appropriate.
Sever Peterson, 15900 Flying Cloud Drive, stated that he fully
supported the proponent's proposal . He added that he was willing to
work with the Notermans to realign the intersection of County Road
#4 and U. S. Highway #169 by selling them a portion of his property.
Mr. Putnam added that the design of the lot was such now that future
expansion would not be possible for the use.
Hallett questioned how many cars could park at the site currently.
Staff responded that it was approximately 40, including the on-
street parking within the road right-of-way.
Torjesen stated that he felt the relocation of the parking lot
farther down the hill had made an improvement to the site and the
overall situation. He stated that, in addition, he did not feel the
difference between 40 and 60 parking spaces was of great
significance. Torjesen questioned whether there would be room for
additional parking spaces to the west of the building due to the
configuration of the parcel. Mr. Putnam responded that the
drainfield was located in this area. Torjesen suggested
"tightening" the site even further to assure that expansion of the
use and parking lot would not be possible beyond what was proposed
. by the proponent by the plans being reviewed. Staff concurred that
this should be done.
MOTION 1 •
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett, to recommend
approval of the rezoning of approximately two acres of property
necessary for the current Lion's Tap and 60 parking spaces, limiting
expansion to the architectural elements necessary to provide access
to the-restaurant from the north side, including the addition of 39
seating places within the restaurant, based on revised plans and
written materials dated April 21, and April 22, 1983, and subject to
the recommendations of the Staff Reports of April 8, and April 22,
1983, with the addition of a condition #10 to read: "The
configuration of the site shall be "tightened" to assure that future
expansion of the building and parking areas cannot be allowed by lot
size;" and condition #11 to read: "The specific use of this site is
intended, and shall remain to be, only for the Lion's Tap.
Covenants between the City and the owners to restrict the use to the
Lion's Tap only shall be prepared and executed."
Motion carried--5-2-0 (Chairman Bearman and Schuck against)
C. HIDDEN GLEN, by R. M. Feerick Associates. Request for
Planned Unit Development District Review of 104 acres for
195 single family detached units and 58 multi-family units;
Rezoning from Rural to R1-9.5, R1-13.5, and R1-22 for 22.8
acres for residential use; and Preliminary Plat of 22.8
acres for 59 single family lots. Location: East of Highway
101 and South of Townline Road. A public hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes 6 April 25, 1983
Planner Enger reviewed the proposed changes to this proposal from
the previously approved PUD. These were as follows: 1) The road
system had been changed; 2) The location and accesses to Dell Road
had been altered; 3) Multiple residential use was proposed in the
northeast corner, whereas it had previously been single family; 4)
The proposed density was changed from 2.0 to 2.4 units per acre as
currently allowed by City Code.
Staff stated that a report had not been completed on the project due
to the fact that major site design features had not yet been
resolved. Of greatest importance was the alignment of Dell Road
through this project. The State of Minnesota, Hennepin County, the
City of Chanhassen, and the City of Minnetonka were also involved
due to the location of this road and its connection to Highway 101
in the vicinity of this project. Planner Enger reported that the
City had previously planned to extend Dell Road directly north to
intersect with Townline Road, maintaining it as a community arterial
road. However, poor soils dictated that the road alignment be
readjusted to avoid encounter with the poor soils. The alignment
proposed through this project would locate the road on good soils,
but the other governmental agencies were required to review such an
alignment. If Dell Road were to be extended through this project as
shown, it would be possible to allow it to be built as a residential
section at this time, and allowed to remain as such, until it became
necessary to widen the road to thoroughfare status.
Sidewalks were not shown as part of the development. The City would
require sidewalks to be built along Dell Road and along the other
major roads in the development.
In addition, the plan proposed drainage to be directed overland into
the City of Chanhassen. Chanhassen City officials had not reviewed
the plan, nor commented on the storm water drainage.
Also, Staff had reviewed the proposal with the City Engineering
Department regarding the sanitary sewer and watermains necessary to
service the project. It was the opinion of the City Staff that the
phasing proposed for the project would not be functional due to the
location of watermains which would service the project.
Staff was requesting as part of this proposal that the Lochanburn
and Dellwood neighborhoods be connected to this project via roads
as well .
Dick Krier, Westwood Planning and Engineering, representing the
developer, stated that the connections to the neighborhoods to the
south were not considered necessary by the proponent. He stated
that the connections proposed did not provide any benefit to the
• development.
Mr. Krier stated that they, too, were concerned about the soils in
the southwest portion of the site. Necessary soil correction
measures would be taken to mitigate this.
Planning Commission Minutes 7 April 25, 1983
Regarding the alignment of Dell Road, Mr. Krier stated that he felt
that a 100 ft. right-of-way was excessive for this road. The City's
Comprehensive Plan depicted the road as an interior arterial road,
not intended to service the surrounding communities, but to provide
for circulation within the City itself. He stated that since there
would be no access allowed to this road, it created major design
constraints to the property. At 100 ft. in width, the constraints
would be even greater.
Mr. Krier pointed out that the upgrading of Highway 101 would also
require additional land from this property at its northwest corner.
A 50 mile per hour curve was planned. Mr. Krier stated that he felt
the right-of-way proposed would be adequate.
DISCUSSION
Chairman Bearman stated that he recalled the previous PUD for this
property did not plan for garages to be built with the units. Mr.
Krier stated that garages were included in these plans.
Chairman Bearman asked what type of park was planned for the south
portion of the property. Mr. Krier responded that the park would be
an informal active park.
Mr. Krier stated that it would be the proponents' desire to solve
the question of alignment of Dell Road as soon as possible through
Phase I in order to allow construction to begin this season. Staff
stated that, if Dell Road was aligned to do anything but intersect
with Highway 101 to the west, Phase I would not be affected by the
alignment of Dell Road.
Chairman Bearman questioned how far west Dell Road would have to be
moved in order to be constructed on good soils. Staff responded
that soil tests would have to be taken to make that determination.
The floodplain region would definitely have to be avoided.
Chairman Bearman asked for comments and questions from members of
the audience.
Matt Strodel, 6610 Lochanburn Road, stated that he was against the
idea of having the neighborhoods connected to this development. He
also expressed concern that the storm water drainage be dealt with
in a manner to keep water from collecting at the southwest corner of
the proposed plat and draining onto his property.
Dennis Flaherty, 6640 Lochanburn Road, stated that he agreed with
Mr. Strodel regarding the connection of neighborhoods. He added
that he did not feel it was necessary to connect the neighborhoods
• for any reason.
Frank Farmico, Duck Lake Trail, stated that he was concerned that
Dell Road would introduce great amounts of traffic into the
neighborhood. He stated that he did not feel the neighborhoods
Planning Commission Minutes 8 April 25, 1983
should be connected, nor improved with lighting and sidewalks.
Sue Keller, 6721 Lochanburn Road, stated that there were 24
elementary school children and 18 pre-school children on her cul-de-
sac. She stated that she felt it would be detrimental to the safety
of the children and families in this neighborhood if the
neighborhoods were connected.
Dave Campbell, Harrogate Drive, stated that he did not want
Harrogate Drive connected through to the north to join the
neighborhoods. He stated that he did not feel it would be.
appropriate to increase the traffic through this existing
neighborhood.
Janet Butler, 6741 Lochanburn Road, stated that she agreed with the
others who stated objection to connection of neighborhoods. She
added that she did not feel there would be any advantages to having
a four-lane road in the area of these residential neighborhoods.
Bob Kruell stated that he felt the City should not destroy the
integrity of the neighborhoods by connecting roads through all the
subdivisions.
Staff stated that it was City policy to connect neighborhoods
• wherever possible for safety reasons for emergency vehicle access.
Stan Reigert, 6611 Lochanburn Road, stated that he disagreed with
the need to connect neighborhoods for emergency vehicle access.
Hallett asked if Dell Road were extended directly north, whether the
land to the west of Dell Road would be developable. Planner Enger
stated that it would be, but the land to the east would not be.
Hallett also asked what the difference in cost would be to run the
road directly north as originally planned. Planner Enger stated
that the cost would be about double to align the road through the
poor soils. Further, this would be direct cost to the• City. The
developer would only be charged for an amount equal to a residential
section of road.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Schuck, to continue the
public hearing to the May 9, 1983 Planning Commission meeting in
order to resolve the major design questions for the project.
Motion carried--6-0-1 (Marhula abstained)
D. BRYANT LAKE OFFICE/TECH CENTER, by Welsh Construction.
Request for PUD Amendment, with variances, Rezoning from C-
• Regional Commercial to Office, and Preliminary Plat for 7.94
acres for office/service storage facilities. Location:
County Road 60 (Valley View Road) and Market Place Drive. A
public hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes 9 April 25, 1983
• Wally Hustad, owner of the land proposed for development, presented
the request. He stated that, in proposing the use of this land,
proponent felt it was difficult to choose a specific zoning district
as the "high-tech" use proposed was a combination of office and
industrial features. The request was for I-2 zoning. Mr. Hustad
stated that the neighbors he had spoken with regarding this project
were favorable.
Dennis Doyle, Welsh Construction, stated that the buildings would be
owner-occupied. He reviewed the architectural features of the plan
with the Commission.
Planner Enger stated that the overriding issue for this proposal was
that of land use. He stated that the Comprehensive Plan had
designated this area as an office use. However, the proposed
industrial features of the buildings presented land use questions
for this Office District.
The Staff Report referred to other concerns, as well, including the
easterly public street and the landscaping/screening plan for the
project.
DISCUSSION
• Marhula stated that he felt the land use question was the most
important issue to deal with for the site. He asked for Staff's
opinion regarding this. Planner Enger responded that the main
question for the Commission was whether, in their opinion, the
buildings and uses proposed would fit into this district, even if
rezoned to I-2. The three lots proposed for I-2 zoning could
potentially house 100% manufacturing or 100% assembling uses. They
are currently planned for 50% office and 50% warehouse. Loading
docks were proposed for these three buildings, also. Parking spaces
were planned based on the 50% office/50% warehouse uses shown. The
general rule for planning parking spaces for such buildings was 1/3
office parking formula, 1/3 warehouse, and 1/3 manufacturing.
Planner Enger stated that the City had an inventory of hundreds of
acres for industrial uses within its boundaries. The purpose of
keeping the districts separate has been to separate the nuisances of
the industrial district from those of the office districts and other
districts allowed by City Code. If the use was deemed to be more
office than industrial, perhaps the mixture of zoning districts
would be compatible.
Marhula asked if the original PUD for the site integrated the five-
acre exception parcel. Planner Enger responded that the road
connection was approved as pointed out in the Staff Report.
Schuck questioned proponent regarding the tenants committed to the
buildings thus far. Mr. Doyle responded that the tenants, other
than the commercial photographic studio proposed to occupy the
office parcel, were high-tech uses, which required a 50/50 mix of
office and warehousing.
Planning Commission Minutes 10 April 25, 1983
• Chairman Bearman stated that he felt the zoning of this property as
I-2 could possibly lead to problems in the future, if the original
tenants were replaced with manufacturing or assembling uses, which
were allowed in the I-2 district. He questioned the advisability
of allowing a "spot zone" of industrial use in an area guided for
office.
Mr. Hustad stated that the surrounding property owners in the
Lakeridge Office Park had all been contacted and were in favor of
the uses proposed. Several had written letters to the City stating
their opinions.
Johannes stated that he had seen several areas of the United States
and the Twin Cities with this type of development and felt that it
could be a successful development within the City of Eden Prairie.
Chairman Bearman asked the proponents why they had not chosen land
in the industrial zone for this use. Mr. Doyle responded that the
types of owners interested in this land were looking for areas where
higher quality buildings of brick and glass were the standard,
instead of railroads and concrete block buildings.
Hallett questioned whether the number of parking spaces proposed was
adequate for the property. Planner Enger responded the parking for
the site was based on 50% office and 50% warehouse. This amounted
to approximately three parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross
floor area. Office required five parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft.
The site did not meet the 1/3-1/3-1/3 formula used in the I-2
districts as a general parking formula for such buildings.
Chairman Bearman asked for questions or comments from members of the
audience.
Jeanine Nelson, 18129 Valley View Road, asked if energy conservation
had been considered in the construction plans for the structures.
Proponent responded that the latest energy efficiency standards
would be met or exceeded.
MOTION 1 :
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Johannes, to close the
public.
Motion carried--7-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Schuck, to recommend
approval of the Bryant Lake Business Center project request for
Planned Unit Development Amendment, rezoning from Regional
Commercial to Office District and I-2 Park, and PUD District Review,
including variances, based on plans and written material dated March
23, 1983, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report
dated April 22, 1983.
Planning Commission Minutes 11 April 25, 1983
Motion carried-6-1-0 (Chairman Bearman voted against)
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Schuck, to recommend
approval of the Bryant Lake Business Center project request for
Preliminary Plat of 10.83 acres, based on plans and written material
dated March 23, 1983, and subject to the recommendations of the
Staff Report dated April 22, 1983.
Motion carried--6-1-0 (Chairman Bearman voted against)
E. LORENCE ADDITION, by Associated Investments, Inc. Request
for Guide Plan Change from Low to Medium Density Residential
and Rezoning from Rural to RM-6.5 for •4.725 acres for 31
condominium units. Location: Duck Lake Road and Valley
View Road. A public meeting.
Mr. Tom Robertson, Associated Investments, Inc., reviewed the
request for the development with the Commission. He stated that the
property would be developed under condominium documentation, even
though the buildings would appear to be more like townhouses. This
was being done as it provided greater protection of the owners in
• terms of maintenance of the common areas of the property. The cost
of the units would be approximately $60,000 per unit, and would
average 980 sq. ft. of floor area.
Planner Enger reviewed the requested Guide Plan change for the site.
He pointed out that the site was isolated by physical features such
as Valley View Road, the railroad embankment, and a ponding area.
Also, the utilities in the area were adequate to service the site.
The isolation of the site physically would likely prevent the
expansion of a medium density district to the west as such physical
features were not present. Staff was recommending in favor of the
proposed Guide Plan change. Staff was also recommending in favor of
the requested front yard setback variance due to the excessive size
of the right-of-way for Valley View Road in that particular
location.
DISCUSSION
Marhula questioned whether there was still a small sliver of land
between this property and the Valley View Road right-of-way left
from the realignment of Valley View Road through this area. Staff
responded that the "sliver" had been purchased by the City at the
time of the realignment of the road, which was the reason for the
right-of-way being excessively large in this area.
Ted Brinkman, 18117 Valley View Road, stated that he was concerned
that the Guide Plan change from low to medium density not be
expanded any further to the west. He asked for examples of where
other units of this type were located in the City. Staff mentioned
three locations to Mr. Brinkman.
Planning Commission Minutes 12 April 25, 1983
Jeanine Nelson, 18129 Valley View Road, asked if the elevation of
the railroad track in this area would cause drainage problems for
this site. Mr. Robertson responded that this had been considered in
the utility plans for the project.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Schuck, to recommend
approval of the request for Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density
Residential to Medium Density Residential for 4.725 acres for 31
condominium units, based on materials and plans dated March 1, and
March 10, 1983, and based on the criteria listed in the Staff Report
of April 22, 1983.
Motion carried--7-0-0
MOTION 2•
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Torjesen, to recommend
approval of the request for rezoning from Rural to RM-6.5 for 4.725
acres for 31 condominium units, based on materials and plans dated
March 1, and March 10, 1983, subject to the recommendations of the
Staff Report of April 22, 1983.
• Motion carried--7-0-0
VI. OLD BUSINESS
None.
VII. NEW BUSINESS
None.
VIII. PLANNER'S REPORT
None.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Torjesen, seconded by Marhula.
Chairman Bearman adjourned the meeting at 12:12 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
• Kate Karnas
Planning Secretary