Planning Commission - 02/27/1984 AGENDA
Monday, February 27, 1984
*School Board Meeting Room
8100 School Road
7:30 p.m.
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman William Bearman, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett,
Stan Johannes, Dennis Marhula, Ed Schuck, Hakon Torjesen
STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael D. Franzen,
Senior Planner; Kate Karnas, Recording Secretary
Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
III. MINUTES
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. VALLEY VIEW MANOR HOMES, by Sunrise Properties. Request for
Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 and Preliminary
Plat of 20 acres for 112 units in 14 condominium buildings.
Location: North of Valley View Road, 1/4 mile East of
Mitchell Road. A continued public hearing.
B. WILSON RIDGE, by Wilson Ridge Joint Venture. Request for
Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 60.85 acres;
Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Office to Industrial
for 11 .6 acres; Planned Unit Development District Review and
Zoning District Change from Commercial Regional to I-2 Park,
with variances, for 11 .6 acres and from Commercial Regional
to Office, with variances, for 18.64 acres; and Preliminary
Plat of 60.85 acres for three lots and four outlots
Location: North of Valley View Road and East of Highway
#169. A continued public hearing.
C. VILLAGE GREENS, by Norm Kerr. Request for Preliminary Plat
of 12.84 acres for seven (7) lots for 122 condominium units.
Location: Northwest quadrant of Valley View Road and Golf
View Drive. A public hearing.
D. PAULSEN'S 2ND ADDITION, by Dirlam Development. Request for
Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 for 6.3 acres
and Preliminary Plat of 6.3 acres into 19 single family
lots. Location: North of C. M. St. Paul and Pacific
Railroad, south of Hidden Ponds Park. A public hearing.
E. PRESERVE COMMERCIAL PARK NORTH 2ND ADDITION, by the Preserve
of en Prairie. Request for Preliminary Plat of 6.75 acres
for four lots. Location: Northwest quadrant of U. S. 169
and Prairie Center Drive. A public hearing.
(OVER)
Agenda
February 27, 1984
Page 2
F. GONYEA 3RD ADDITION. Request for Planned Unit Development
District Review and Zoning from Rural to R1-13.5 for 9.22
acres, and from Rural to R1-9.5 for 3.85 acres; and
Preliminary Plat of 37.19 acres into 33 residential lots and
five outlots. Location: Northeast quadrant of State
Highway #5 and County Road A. A public hearing.
V. NEW BUSINESS
A. CDBG FUNDING FOR YEAR IX
VI. OLD BUSINESS
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, February 27, 1984
School Board Meeting Room
8100 School Road, 7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman William Bearman, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett,
Stan Johannes, Dennis Marhula, Hakon Torjesen
MEMBERS ABSENT: Ed Schuck
STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael D. Franzen,
Senior Planner; Kate Karnas, Recording Secretary
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION:
Motion was made by Torjesen, seconded by Marhula, to adopt the
agenda as printed.
Motion carried--6-0-0
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
None.
III. MINUTES
MOTION:
Motion was made by Torjesen, seconded by Hallett, to approve the
minutes of the February 9, 1984, Planning Commission meeting with
the following corrections: On Page 4, paragraph 3, change the name
Mr. Richard Enblom to Mr. Paul Enblom, and, paragraph 8, change the
Acting Chairman Hallett to Acting Chairman Torjesen.
Motion carried--4-0-2 (Chairman Bearman and Marhula abstained)
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. VALLEY VIEW MANOR HOMES, by Sunrise Properties. Request for
Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 and Preliminary
Plat of 20 acres for 112 units in 14 condominium buildings.
Location: North of Valley View Road, 1/4 mile East of
Mitchell Road. A continued public hearing.
Mr. Dave Hansing, engineer for the proponent, reviewed the amended
plans with the Commission. He pointed out the additional covered
and uncovered parking spaces, the addition of elevation detail, a
Planning Commission Minutes 2 February 27, 1984
third alternative elevation style for the structures, the effect of
removal of one structure and the relocation of the remaining
` structures, and the additional landscaping for the project.
Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the
Staff Report for this project, as revised.
Marhula questioned whether there would be a westerly entrance with a
median cut on Valley View Road, accessing the property. Planner
Enger responded that there would be a median cut; however, it did
not align with the right-in, right-out entrance to the property on
the south side of Valley View Road.
Marhula expressed concern for the circuitous access to the rear
units of Building #2 of Block 2. Mr. Hansing responded that, in
their opinion, this was the best alternative for servicing of these
units as it would allow for less disturbance of the wooded knoll .
Planner Franzen added that Staff had reviewed this alternative,
also, but had determined that it would take a greater amount of
grading to accomplish. Therefore, the proposed plan was more
acceptable.
Torjesen asked if the access along the west property line had been
aligned with the project to the west. Planner Franzen stated that
it was off-set 180 ft. from the access for the project to the west,
which was acceptable to the Engineering Department.
Planner Enger stated that the garage situation was a difficult one
to deal with as the option of garages was tied to fact that more
than one owner needed to request an second garage. The extra
garages were proposed to be built in buildings that would contain
three or four stalls; therefore, at least three or four owners would
need to request an extra garage before the garage structure would be
built. Staff suggested that perhaps the City could request the
developer to sell at least 25% of the units with extra garages,
therefore guaranteeing the availability of the extra garages to a
certain number of future owners.
Marhula asked if the proposed locations for extra garages encroached
upon the proposed locations for uncovered parking spaces. Staff
responded that, in some cases, it could.
Staff added that in one of the projects where the City had
requested, and developer had planned for, extra parking space and
garages, it had been found that the project tenant mix was different
than expected and that more parking spaces were still needed. It
was Staff's concern that this not happen in the future.
Marhula asked what the number of uncovered spaces per unit was for
the project. Staff responded that it was approximately 1 .75
unobstructed parking spaces per unit, without counting the space
available in front of the garage within the driveway.
Planning Commission Minutes 3 February 27, 1984
Hallett stated that he agreed with Staff that a certain percentage
of the additional garages should be built at this time.
Chairman Bearman asked for comments and questions from members of
the audience. There were none.
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
City Council approval of the request of Sunrise Properties for
Zoning District change from Rural to RM-6.5 for 112 condominium
units in fourteen (14) buildings to be known as Valley View Manor
Homes, based on revised plans dated February 16, and February 17,
1984, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report of
February 17, 1984, with the addition of Item #3E. to read: Extra
garages shall be provided for 25% of the units upon initial
construction of the project with developer required to sell at least
25% of the units with extra garages.
Motion carried--6-0-0
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett, to recommend to the
City Council approval of the request of Sunrise Properties for
Preliminary Plat of 20 acres for 112 condominium units in fourteen
(14) buildings, to be known as Valley View Manor Homes, based on
revised plans dated February 16, and February 17, 1984, and subject
to the recommendations of the Staff Report of February 17, 1984,
with the addition of Item #3E. to read: Extra garages shall be
provided for 25% of the units upon initial construction of the
project with developer required to sell at least 25% of the units
with extra garages.
Motion carried--6-0-0
B. WILSON RIDGE, by Wilson Ridge Joint Venture. Request for
Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 60.85 acres;
Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Office to Industrial
for 11 .6 acres; Planned Unit Development District Review and
Zoning District Change from Commercial Regional to I-2 Park,
with variances, for 11 .6 acres and from Commercial Regional
to Office, with variances, for 18.64 acres; and Preliminary
Plat of 60.85 acres for three lots and four outlots
Location: North of Valley View Road and East of Highway
#169. A continued public hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes 4 February 27, 1984
Mr. Wally Hustad, representing proponents, stated that the
proponents were dedicated to the idea of mixed uses on this site.
He stated that the most important factor to them was that a mixed
use area allowed for cross-fertilization of businesses, and,
therefore, a healthier business climate. Mr. Hustad pointed out
that these were the reasons for the requested Comprehensive Guide
Plan amendment.
Mr. Hustad gave statistics on the amount of office space within the
metropolitan area and that portion of new construction of office
space which would be attributable to the City of Eden Prairie. He
stated that the City should be more responsive to the market
conditions and the need for high-tech industries within the
community. Mr. Hustad pointed out that they, as developers, were
making an investment in the community, too, and felt that it would
be better in the long run to have this mix available to the City to
help it grow.
Mr. Darrell Anderson, architect for proponents, reviewed the revised
site characteristics. He stated that 80% of the site would maintain
its present visual form.
Mr. Dennis Doyle, Welsh Construction, one of the proponents, stated
that since the previous meeting before the Planning Commission, they
had revised the long, linear nature of the proposed
office/industrial structures and had changed one of the
office/industrial sites, the most northerly, to an office use.
Also, the retaining walls had been reduced, based on the proposed
realignment of the road by Staff.
Mr. Doyle added that it would be approximately two-to-three weeks
before the tree survey requested by the Commission and Staff in, and
adjacent to, construction areas would be completed. Also, the
proponents had hired a traffic consultant to provide the requested
traffic information, which was not available at this time. Mr.
Doyle stated that the proponents would prefer that Outlots A and D
not be eliminated from the proposal at this time, as recommended by
Staff, due to financing considerations.
Mr. Bob Brown, Wilson Learning Center, stated that the Wilson
Learning structure would be the home for 250 employees, 185 of which
would be transferred from the Washington Avenue office of Wilson
Learning Center. He gave additional history of the business and its
intentions for the future.
Staff reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report
regarding the revised request.
Planner Enger responded to the comment regarding too much office
space in the City, stating that the real estate market was known to
be cyclical and that the City could not base its Comprehensive Guide
Plan designations for land use upon one cycle of the market. He
pointed out that this was a plan for the City's future, as well as
for its present. Based on Staff's research, the City did not have
Planning Commission Minutes 5 February 27, 1984
too large an inventory of office space for its present and future
needs.
Regarding the development plans, Staff stated that the tree
inventory was necessary due to the need to know whether the
developer was locating roads or structures in the best location for
maximum preservation of large trees.
Chairman Bearman asked if the traffic study to be completed for the
site took into consideration the truck traffic which would be
inherent with this development. Mr. Doyle stated that he did not
know at this time, but would check and report back to the City.
Chairman Bearman asked if there was danger of density transfer from
the preservation areas designated on the site to the sites which
existed only in concept at this time. Staff stated that it was
possible; however, such matters could be documented within a
developer's agreement for the property to avoid such an occurrence.
Torjesen questioned which areas were proposed for a Comprehensive
Guide Plan amendment by proponent. Staff pointed out the designated
areas. Torjesen stated that he was reluctant to amend the Guide
Plan without specific plans for a site and with no plans or details
to support the request as he felt would be done with sites which did
not have building plans at this time.
Chairman Bearman asked if Valley View Road could be widened at its
intersection with Flying Cloud Drive. Staff pointed out that there
were restrictions upon expansion of Valley View Road in this area.
The traffic study would be needed to determine the impact of the
project upon Valley View Road and the alternatives available for
mitigation of this situation.
Chairman Bearman stated that, while he felt that Wilson Learning
Center was a good use for the site's south end, he, too, was
reluctant to deal with a Comprehensive Guide Plan change to
industrial usage without detailed plans which would show the impact
of the changed used upon the surrounding uses. Chairman Bearman
stated that, in this case, architectural elevations would be
important, due to the visibility of the sites proposed for
industrial use from the surrounding uses that were at higher
elevations, or that would be multiple stories in height.
Chairman Bearman also questioned the density of the proposal. He
pointed out that the City had previously approved a total of 300,000
sq. ft. of office space for this site, while the proponents were
currently showing 350,000 to 500,000 sq. ft. of space. Chairman
Bearman questioned whether the proponent's project was realistic
with respect to not damaging or compromising the amenities of the
site.
Johannes stated that he felt the site should be viewed as a whole,
and that the Wilson Learning site could not be isolated from the
remaining portions of the project.
Planning Commission Minutes 6 February 27, 1984
Gartner stated that she was satisfied with Outlots A and D, with the
stipulation that those portions of the project be on the order of
high-tech uses.
Torjesen reiterated concern with the lack of justification for a
Comprehensive Guide Plan change. It was suggested that the Planning
Commission consider a Comprehensive Guide Plan change from Office to
Office/Industrial.
Marhula stated that he was not uncomfortable with a Comprehensive
Guide Plan change to Office/Industrial without seeing the site plans
for Outlots A and D at this time. He pointed to several areas of
the community where this had been done. However, with respect to
Site #2, Marhula expressed concern for the level of detail available
at this time. He stated that he felt it would be necessary for the
City to review the impact of traffic on the site, visual impact from
Highway #169, visual impact from the other surrounding uses, and
other matters. Marhula stated that he felt the view of the tops of
the buildings from the Wilson Learning Center structure would be
important to deal with in future detailed drawings.
Hallett stated that he felt the proponent should return to the City
with architectural detail on all sites and with a re-evaluation of
the road alignment proposed. Hallett stated that he liked the idea
of Office/Industrial guiding for the site. He added that he felt
the tree inventory was critical to the future considerations for the
property.
Torjesen stated that he, too, liked the idea of Office/Industrial
guiding for the site, with an emphasis on office and with industrial
uses being designed with an office appearance. Torjesen also
expressed concern for the impact of Outlot D upon the Enblom
property to the south of Outlot D.
Mr. Don Sorenson, 7121 Willow Creek Road, stated that he felt the
Wilson Learning building urged the consideration of ramp parking or
additional proof of parking due to its expandability.
Mr. Sorenson expressed concern regarding the proposed use of
industrial on this site. He stated that he did not feel it was
appropriate to change the Guide Plan on a site-by-site basis,
without taking into consideration the impact of such a change on the
Guide Plan, as a whole. He said that he did not feel the City
should respond to Guide Plan changes based on market demands.
The Commission discussed possible actions on the project in detail,
based on the proponents' requests.
MOTION 1 :
Motion was made by Torjesen, seconded by Marhula to close the public
hearing on the Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment and Planned Unit
Development Concept for Wilson Ridge, and to recommend to the City
Council approval of the Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment and
Planning Commission Minutes 7 February 27, 1984
Planned Unit Development Concept Plan for Wilson Ridge Joint
Venture, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports of
February 10, and February 24, 1984, with the following
modifications:
Outlot A shall be an Office/Industrial use
Site #2 shall be an Office/Industrial use
Outlot D shall be an Office use at this time, with
consideration for Office/Industrial in the event that site
plan detail can justify a use other than strictly office.
Office/Industrial shall be taken to mean primarily office
use, with site plan detail to provide for the justification
of anything other than office use within the structures on
these lots.
The remainder of the Planned Unit Development Concept plan
for Wilson Ridge Joint Venture plan shall be Office uses,
such as Site #1, and preservation areas, as shown on their
plans.
Motion carried--4-2-0 (Chairman Bearman and Johannes against)
Johannes stated that he was against as he felt that Outlot D should
also be placed in the proposed Office/Industrial use category at
this time.
Chairman Bearman stated that he was against in that he felt the
originally approved Planned Unit Development for the site was more
appropriate for the property due to its sensitivity to the site
amenities and its land uses. With the current plans to nearly
double the site coverage and intensify the development of the
property, he stated that he did not feel the Wilson Ridge proposal
was the best plan for the property.
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Torjesen, seconded by Gartner, to close the
public hearing on the Planned Unit Development District Review and
Zoning from C-Regional to Office, with variances, and to close the
public hearing on the Preliminary Plat of 18.64 acres for the Wilson
Learning Center, Site #1, based on plans dated February 24, 1984,
and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated
February 10, and February 24, 1984.
Motion carried--6-0-0
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Johannes, to close the
public hearing on the Planned Unit Development District Review and
Planning Commission Minutes 8 February 27, 1984
Zoning District change from C-Regional to I-2 Park, with variances,
and Preliminary Plat for 11 .6 acres, for Site #2, based on plans
dated February 24, 1984, and subject to the recommendations of the
Staff Reports dated February 10, and February 24, 1984.
Motion f ailed--2-4-0 (Chairman Bearman, Gartner, Marhula, and
Torjesen against)
MOTION 4-
Motion was made by' Marhula, seconded by Hallett, that proponents
return to the Planning Commission at the March 12, 1984, meeting
with revised and more detailed plans, including, but not limited to,
landscaping, architecture, rooftop mechanical equipment treatments,
and site sections from appropriate locations such as the Wilson
Learning Center site, for Site #2.
Motion carried--4-2-0 (Gartner and Torjesen against)
MOTION 5:
Motion was made by Torjesen, seconded by Marhula, to continue the
public hearings regarding the Planned Unit Development District
Review and Zoning District change from C-Regional to I-2 Park, with
variances, and Preliminary Plat for the entire property, except Site
#1, the Wilson Learning Center site, to the March 12, 1984, meeting.
Motion carried--6-0-0
C. VILLAGE GREENS, by Norm Kerr. Request for Preliminary Plat
of 12.84 acres for seven (7) lots for 122 condominium units.
Location: Northwest quadrant of Valley View Road and Golf
View Drive. A public hearing.
Mr. Bob Martinson, the Kerr Companies, reviewed the preliminary plat
request with the Commission, pointing out that the plans had been
revised to eliminate the outlots within the street right-of-ways,
which had been intended for entrance monuments.
Staff reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report
of February 17, 1984.
Marhula questioned whether the plat was divided into small enough
parcels for FHA and VA financing, which may cause the proponent to
return for a revised plat before the City. Staff stated that the
request was for only two lots and the public road right-of-way.
Hallett stated that it was his opinion that Valley View Road should
be upgraded to its anticipated final design with this project for
safety purposes. Staff stated that this would be documented to the
Council.
Planning Commission Minutes 9 February 27, 1984
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 request for Preliminary Plat of 12.84
acres for 112 condominium units for Norm Kerr for Village Greens,
based on written materials dated January 27, 1984, plans dated
January 16, and February 24, 1984, and subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated February 17, 1984.
Motion carried--6-0-0
The Commission discussed the need for upgrading of Valley View Road
in greater detail, pointing out the need for the safety in this
general area, especially due to the currently inadequate condition
of the road and the fact that more property was being developed in
this area.
Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Marhula, to recommend to the
City Council exploration of the upgrading of Valley View Road to its
projected final phases in conjunction with this project for safety
purposes.
Motion carried--6-0-0
D. PAULSEN'S 2ND ADDITION, by Dirlam Development. Request for
Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 for 6.3 acres
and Preliminary Plat of 6.3 acres into 19 single family
lots. Location: North of C. M. St. Paul and Pacific
Railroad, south of Hidden Ponds Park. A public hearing.
Mr. Dennis Dirlam, proponent, reviewed the site characteristics and
design features of the project with the Commission.
Staff reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report
with the Planning Commission, noting the need for absorption of the
outlots into the other lots within the plat.
Johannes asked if the condition regarding separation of similar
units to provide variety within the plat should be included in this
project. Other Commissioners concurred.
Chairman Bearman asked for questions or comments from members of
the audience. There were none.
MOTION 1 :
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Johannes, to close the
Planning Commission Minutes 10 February 27, 1984
public hearing.
Motion carried--6-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Johannes, to recommend to
the City Council approval of the request for Zoning District change
from Rural to R1-9.5 for Paulsen's 2nd Addition by Dirlam
Development, based on plans and written materials dated February 1,
and February 16, 1984, and subject to the recommendations of the
Staff Report of February 24, 1984, with the following added
conditions: 2C. Proponent shall submit, prior to final plat, a
revised plan showing extension of Paulsen Drive to the park road or
Dell Road, whichever is deemed appropriate by the City Engineer; and
3C. Prior to building permit issuance, proponent shall submit a
development plan showing the location of various units in order than
no two identical housing types shall be located adjacent to, across
from, or diagonally across from each other.
Motion carried--6-0-0
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Torjesen, to recommend to
16 the City Council approval of the request for Preliminary Plat for
Paulsen's 2nd Addition by Dirlam Development for 18 single family
lots on 6.2 acres, based on plans and written materials dated
February 1, and February 16, 1984, and subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report of February 24, 1984, with the
following added conditions: 2C. Proponent shall submit, prior to
final plat, plans showing extension of Paulsen Drive to the Park
road or Dell Road, whichever is deed appropriate by the City
Engineer; and 3C. Prior to building permit issuance, proponent
shall submit a development plan showing the location of the various
units in order that no two housing types shall be located adjacent
to, across from, or diagonally across from each other.
Motion carried--6-0-0
E. PRESERVE COMMERCIAL PARK NORTH 2ND ADDITION, by the Preserve
of Eden Prairie. Request for Preliminary Plat of 6.75 acres
for four lots. Location: Northwest quadrant of U. S. 169
and Prairie Center Drive. A public hearing.
Mr. Peter Bishop, proponent's engineer, and Mr. Ken Persons of the
Preserve, were available present the project and answer any question
of the Commission regarding this proposed plat.
Staff explained that the developer's agreement for the Preserve Area
G, which included the portion of property to be called the Preserve
Commercial Park North 2nd Addition, provided for a Design Review
Committee to deal with site plan review and design matters. The
projects to be included on this portion of Area G included an office
Planning Commission Minutes 11 February 27, 1984
building and a Burger King restaurant. Staff added that these two
projects had already been reviewed by the Design Review Committee;
however, the proponent had been required to follow the procedures
for preliminary plat.
Marhula questioned the reason for the off-set right-of-way. Planner
Enger explained that the road had previously been a private road,
but it was now a public road; therefore, to maintain equal setbacks
on both sides of the road required off-setting the location of the
road within the right-of-way.
Chairman Bearman asked for questions or comments from members of the
audience. There were none.
MOTION 1 :
Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Gartner, to close the public
hearing.
Motion carried--6-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Gartner, to recommend to the
City Council approval of the request of the Preserve for Preliminary
Plat of 6.75 acres into four (4) lots, to be known as Preserve
Commercial Park North 2nd Addition, based on plans dated January 19,
1984, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated
February 24, 1984.
Motion carried--6-0-0
F. GONYEA 3RD ADDITION. Request for Planned Unit Development
District Review and Zoning from Rural to R1-13.5 for 9.22
acres, and from Rural to R1-9.5 for 3.85 acres; and
Preliminary Plat of 37.19 acres into 33 residential lots and
five outlots. Location: Northeast quadrant of State
Highway #5 and County Road A. A public hearing.
Mr. Gerald Sunde, engineer for proponent, reviewed the request with
the Commission, explaining the mixture of uses approved with the
Planned Unit Development Concept, including elderly housing, single
family housing, and commercial uses.
Planner Enger reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff
Report regarding the project as proposed.
Mr. Sunde questioned the possibilities of relocating the walkway
entering the site from the southeast, meandering towards the north
area of the property, which skirted the marsh area. He stated that,
based on soils information currently available, it appeared that the
walkway would be on unstable soils, if located in the position shown
on the plans. Staff responded that this would be a decision for the
Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission; however, the
Planning Commission Minutes 12 February 27, 1984
stability of the soils would be taken into consideration.
Hallett asked when the proponent planned to begin marketing of these
single family lots. Mr. Sunde stated that the marketing would begin
in Spring, 1984. Hallett stated that he felt it would be important
to place signage on the outlots indicating that the property
adjacent to the single family area would be developed as commercial,
prior to sale of any of the lots.
Torjesen questioned the density of the project. Staff responded
that the density was 2.52 units per acre. Torjesen stated that he
felt the original Concept Plan, which indicated 31 , instead of 33,
lots was more appropriate. He recalled that during the public
hearing on the Concept Plan, the residents to the north of this
property had expressed concern about the density between their
existing lots and the proposed lots. Planner Enger stated that, in
Staff's opinion, the project was not materially different from the
Concept Plan. The number of lots previously shown adjacent to the
existing single family units to the north had remained the same as
was shown in the Concept Plan.
Johannes asked whether it would be appropriate to require that the
south tier of lots have a provision requiring similar units to be
separated. Staff responded that the width of the lots met the Rl-
13.5 standards, it was the depth of the lots which caused them to be
below the R1-13.5 requirements; therefore, this provision may not be
necessary in this case. Johannes suggested that perhaps the
provision of requiring similar units to be separated should be
included in R1-13.5 areas, as well. He pointed out that, in his
neighborhood, and others in the City, which were zoned R1-13.5,
there were many cases were similar units were placed close to each
other, which did not provide for variety within the subdivision.
Based on the success of this provision in the R1-9.5 areas of the
City, Johannes stated that he felt it would be appropriately applied
to many other single family detached subdivisions.
Gartner suggested that a possible alternative would be to zone all
of the lots R1-13.5, requiring the proponent to appear before the
Board of Appeals for variances to those lots which did not meet the
R1-13.5 standards. -
Chairman Bearman stated that at the time of the Concept Plan review,
it had been required that no commercial development take place until
the upgrading of the intersection of Highway #5 and County Road #4
was under construction. He asked Staff what the time table for the
completion of the intersection was. Staff responded that it had
been tentatively scheduled for 1986.
Mr. Joseph Lawler, 7621 Ontario Boulevard, expressed concern about
the storm water holding pond at the southeast portion of the
property. Mr. Sunde explained the permanent improvements which
would be made to mitigate the potential flooding of surrounding
properties. Mr. Sunde pointed out that the previous improvements
had been of a temporary nature.
Planning Commission Minutes 13 February 27, 1984
Mr. Lawler also asked where the access to the southeasterly
commercial lot would be. Staff responded that, after much study of
the situation, a determination had been made to allow access to this
commercial site from Highway #5, or a future frontage road along
Highway #5.
MOTION 1 :
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Johannes, to close the
public hearing.
Motion carried--6-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Johannes, to recommend to
the City Council approval of the request of Gonyea Investments for
Planned -Unit Development District Review and Zoning from Rural to
R1-13.5 for 13.07 acres, based on written materials dated January
25, and January 31, 1984, and plans dated January 12, January 20,
January 25, and January 31, 1984, and subject to the recommendations
of the Staff Report dated February 17, 1984, with the following
additions: A.9. Prior to final plat, proponent shall receive the
required variances for lots not meeting the R1-13.5 Zoning District
requirements from the Board of Appeals; B.3. Prior to building
permit issuance, proponent shall submit a development plan showing
that no two similar housing types shall be located adjacent to,
directly across from, or diagonally across from each other for the
single family residential area; and B.4. Prior to sale of any lots,
proponent shall post signs indicating the location of the future
commercial lots adjacent to the proposed single family area.
Motion carried--4-0-2 (Chairman Bearman and Marhula abstained)
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Johannes, to recommend to
the City Council approval of the request of Gonyea Investments for
Preliminary Plat of 37.19 acres into 33 residential lots and five
outlots for property located at the northeast quadrant of County
Road #4 and Highway #5, based on written materials dated January 25,
and January 31, 1984, and plans dated January 12, January 20,
January 25, and January 31, 1984, and subject to the recommendations
of the Staff Report dated February 17, 1984, with the following
additions: A.9. Prior to final plat, proponent shall receive the
required variances for lots not meeting the required R1-13.5 Zoning
District requirements from the Board of Appeals; B.3. Prior to
building permit issuance, proponent shall submit a development plan
showing that no two similar housing types shall be located adjacent
to, directly across from, or diagonally across from each other for
the single family residential area; and B.4. Prior to sale of any
lots, proponent shall post signs indicating the location of the
future commercial lots adjacent to the proposed single family area.
Planning Commission Minutes 14 February 27, 1984
Motion carried--4-1-1 (Torjesen against, Marhula abstained)
V. NEW BUSINESS
A. CDBG FUNDING FOR YEAR X
The Commission reviewed the proposed projects for funding with Year
X Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds from Hennepin
County.
No action was taken by the Commission at this time.
B. JOINT MEETING WITH CITY COUNCIL
Planner Enger reminded the Commission of the joint meeting with the
City Council at 6:30 p.m., Tuesday, March 6, 1984, at the School
Board Meeting Room, just prior to their regularly scheduled Council
meeting.
VI. OLD BUSINESS
None.
• VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
None.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Marhula, seconded by Johannes.
Chairman Bearman adjourned the meeting at 1 :10 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kate Karnas
Recording Secretary